Could quantum effects explain consciousness?
Sir Frederick
20 October 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Zeeya Merali
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19626264.000-could-quantum-effects-explain-consciousness.html;jsessionid=LOIDDHPPPNPL
WITH its triumphant descriptions of a range of subatomic phenomena, quantum mechanics is one of the most successful scientific
theories of all time. Now it holds out the tantalising prospect of explaining one of the great mysteries in biology: the nature of
consciousness. It may even explain why dreams are dream-like.
These hopes stem from a quantum model of consciousness developed by Efstratios Manousakis of Florida State University, Tallahassee.
It is inspired by the "image flips" the brain makes when faced with an ambiguous image such as the one to the right, which can look
like either a vase or two faces. Psychologists have long been fascinated by the fact that the brain cannot consciously perceive both
versions simultaneously.
Understanding how the brain switches between these versions might shed light on how the conscious experience is generated. "If we
can pinpoint what is different about the brain when someone is conscious versus unconscious of the image, we could solve one of the
biggest questions left in science," says Olivia Carter, a visual psychologist at Harvard University.
填nderstanding how the brain switches between versions of an image might shed light on how consciousness is generated祢mage flips
are especially pronounced when the brain is simultaneously presented with different images at each eye, setting up a "binocular
rivalry" (see Diagram). In experiments using this set-up, participants describe how the picture they perceive periodically flips
from a house to a face. Researchers can record the time between flips, and use magnetic resonance imaging to measure the associated
neural processes in the brain.
The flipping seen in binocular rivalry reminded Manousakis of the quantum behaviour of particles. According to quantum mechanics, a
particle such as an electron does not have clearly defined properties. Rather, it exists in a multiplicity of mutually contradictory
states represented by a wave function. It is only when an observer measures a property that the wave function collapses into one of
these options. This is the phenomenon on which Manousakis based his model.
Putting theory to the test
Quantum models of consciousness are not new, and Carter says they tend to make psychologists groan. One of the most famous was
suggested in the mid-1990s by mathematician Roger Penrose at the University of Oxford and Stuart Hameroff, an anaesthesiologist at
the University of Arizona, Tucson. In their scenario, consciousness arises from quantum computations carried out in protein
assemblies called microtubules inside the brain's neurons. But unlike this and other previous models, Manousakis's is testable.
In an analogy with quantum mechanics, Manousakis defines two separate brain states: "potential consciousness" and "actual
consciousness". He represents potential consciousness - the state in which the brain receives both images simultaneously - as a
quantum wave function. According to his model, actual consciousness occurs when this wave function collapses and the brain perceives
one of the two images. The process then begins anew, with another wave function of potential consciousness evolving that collapses
in its turn, allowing the participant to perceive the rival image.
To set the values of the parameters in his model, Manousakis used the rates at which neurons fire in the brains of people taking
part in binocular rivalry experiments, along with the rates they reported between perceived image flips. From these he calculated a
value for the characteristic frequency controlling the quantum processes that may underlie consciousness in the brain
(www.arxiv.org/abs/0709.4516).
To test the predictive power of the model, Manousakis used data from similar experiments conducted on people who later turned out to
have been tripping on the drug LSD at the time. In these subjects, the neuron firing rate was slower, and when this was fed into his
quantum consciousness model it led to a different prediction for the pattern of image-flip rates that the subjects should see. Sure
enough, these predictions matched what the subjects reported they had seen.
Manousakis has also derived predictions for how periodically removing the image from view affects the perceived image-flip rate. He
hopes psychologists will test them experimentally.
Franco Nori, a quantum physicist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who has in the past been sceptical of attempts to find a
quantum underpinning to consciousness, says Manousakis has made him change his mind. "This is different, its logic is impeccable,"
he says. Nori is particularly impressed by the LSD results. "This is a remarkable effect that might prove that consciousness and
quantum theory are intimately connected," he says.
Henry Stapp, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California who derived his own theory of quantum
consciousness, believes that Manousakis's work could have profound implications. "If it is correct, this is a landmark paper that
for the first time uses quantum mechanics to elucidate brain dynamics and both matches existing experimental data and provides
testable predictions," he says. When it comes to the possible mechanism for quantum consciousness, however, Stapp sounds a note of
caution. He points out that physicists trying to build quantum computers have found it difficult to maintain quantum states, as they
are quickly destroyed when they interact with their environment. "Critics often argue that for this reason such large-scale quantum
states simply can't survive in the brain for long enough to be involved in thought processes," he says.
Carter welcomes Manousakis's input to psychology from physics but suspects most neuroscientists will need more convincing. "I really
want him to get to the heart of how these timings translate to what I experience, when I experience consciousness in general," she
says.
Hameroff suggests that the potential-consciousness state corresponds with our experience of the subconscious mind, which we tap into
in dreams. Unconscious possibilities such as dreams resemble quantum information, he says, with their "multiple coexisting
possibilities, timelessness, hidden meaning and bizarre logic".
泥reams, with their multiple coexisting possibilities, timelessness and bizarre logic, resemble quantum information禰e does not,
however, think Manousakis's model is enough to explain the origin of consciousness, as it requires some form of external
consciousness to be in place to observe the quantum state to cause it to collapse. By contrast, in the Penrose-Hameroff model,
quantum states within microtubules can collapse without any need for external consciousness. He also notes that the numbers
Manousakis has calculated for the frequency of oscillations in binocular rivalry fit well with the Penrose-Hameroff model and could
be created using quantum states spread over microtubules from around 1000 neurons.
Among those who remain unconvinced by the whole idea of a quantum basis for consciousness is Hugh Wilson, a visual neuroscientist at
York University in Ontario, Canada, who is also trained in physics. "The brain is a macroscopic object," he says. "Just as quantum
processes aren't significant in determining the behaviour of other large objects, such as baseballs, I don't think they are
significant in determining the workings of consciousness."
From issue 2626 of New Scientist magazine, 20 October 2007, page 10-11
Six legs, two eyes, one photon
Can you turn a cockroach into a quantum photon detector? Patrick Suppes at Stanford University in California is attempting this feat
to determine whether quantum mechanics really could be at work in the brain.
Quantum mechanics isn't usually invoked to explain how the eye and the brain respond to incoming light. Even in dim light, our eyes
are swamped by photons, and the laws of classical physics are enough to explain how our brains respond to its intensity. Some insect
eyes are much more sensitive, however, and it is possible that they can pick out single photons, Suppes says.
Suppes and Jose Acacio de Barros of San Francisco State University in California have devised an experiment to test this.
Cockroaches are at home in very dim environments, says Suppes, who presented his plans at the Quantum Interactions conference at
Stanford earlier this year. The researchers intend to teach the cockroaches that they will receive a reward if they move towards a
light source. They will then fire single photons from a laser at these "Pavlov cockroaches" to see if they react.
A positive result will show that quantum phenomena can be picked out and manipulated by the brain, Suppes says. "We don't usually
give insects credit for walking on the edge of the quantum-classical divide," he adds, "but we may soon have to."
Art
<mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>Could quantum effects explain consciousness?
>20 October 2007
>NewScientist.com news service
>Zeeya Merali
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19626264.000-could-quantum-effects-explain-consciousness.html;jsessionid=LOIDDHPPPNPL
>WITH its triumphant descriptions of a range of subatomic phenomena, quantum mechanics is one of the most successful scientific
>theories of all time. Now it holds out the tantalising prospect of explaining one of the great mysteries in biology: the nature of
>consciousness. It may even explain why dreams are dream-like.
>
>These hopes stem from a quantum model of consciousness developed by Efstratios Manousakis of Florida State University, Tallahassee.
>It is inspired by the "image flips" the brain makes when faced with an ambiguous image such as the one to the right, which can look
>like either a vase or two faces. Psychologists have long been fascinated by the fact that the brain cannot consciously perceive both
>versions simultaneously.
>
>Understanding how the brain switches between these versions might shed light on how the conscious experience is generated. "If we
>can pinpoint what is different about the brain when someone is conscious versus unconscious of the image, we could solve one of the
>biggest questions left in science," says Olivia Carter, a visual psychologist at Harvard University.
>
>å¡«nderstanding how the brain switches between versions of an image might shed light
<snip>
This is a typical example of "promissory materialism". Note the usual
phrases and words "tantalising prospect", "hopes", "might shed
light", etc.
Sir Frederick
I tend to agree. It may be that the actual situation
is so "weird" that we can't even consider it.
But these magazines have a market,
so they produce stuff that is at least relatively
comprehensible. Perhaps like Sci-Fi.
This(quantum consciousness) is a perennial topic here,
so there is some interest, and it is easy to copy and paste
for sharing.
I like to think in terms of higher dimensions with associated
higher intelligence, though like the "Flatland" denizens it is
actually beyond me. Of course the whole thing smacks of
mysticism, spirit and mystery talk, that's folk lore, I'm full of that.
So new considerations are entertaining no matter how hackneyed.
Art
<mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
Please don't interpret my remarks as a criticism of your posting
topics of general interest, whatever they might be. I'm
actually a big fan of the latest findings, ideas, and theories in
physics (and other sciences).
>I like to think in terms of higher dimensions with associated
>higher intelligence, though like the "Flatland" denizens it is
>actually beyond me. Of course the whole thing smacks of
>mysticism, spirit and mystery talk, that's folk lore, I'm full of that.
>So new considerations are entertaining no matter how hackneyed.
I have to disagree strongly with your attitude concerning
mysticism and spirit, since I'm convinced that therein lies
the answers and approximations to the deeper truths and
understandings we all seek. In fact, in a sense, it is the
(materialistic) scientists who are working with the "fairy tales"
and illusions (mere surface realities and not the deeper inner
realties upon which surface realities depend).
zinnic
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:41:52 -0700, Sir Frederick
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:31:07 GMT, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:00:09 -0700, Sir Frederick
> >><mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Could quantum effects explain consciousness?
> >>>20 October 2007
> >>>NewScientist.com news service
> >>>Zeeya Merali
>
> >>>WITH its triumphant descriptions of a range of subatomic phenomena, quantum mechanics is one of the most successful scientific
> >>>theories of all time. Now it holds out the tantalising prospect of explaining one of the great mysteries in biology: the nature of
> >>>consciousness. It may even explain why dreams are dream-like.
>
> >>>These hopes stem from a quantum model of consciousness developed by Efstratios Manousakis of Florida State University, Tallahassee.
> >>>It is inspired by the "image flips" the brain makes when faced with an ambiguous image such as the one to the right, which can look
> >>>like either a vase or two faces. Psychologists have long been fascinated by the fact that the brain cannot consciously perceive both
> >>>versions simultaneously.
>
> >>>Understanding how the brain switches between these versions might shed light on how the conscious experience is generated. "If we
> >>>can pinpoint what is different about the brain when someone is conscious versus unconscious of the image, we could solve one of the
> >>>biggest questions left in science," says Olivia Carter, a visual psychologist at Harvard University.
>
Art, do you accept that there is a point at which "the deeper inner
realities upon which surface realities depend" lie beyond the limits
of human comprehension?
If so, will not humans then have to make do with "fairy tales and
illusions"
If not, on what bases could you claim that human comprehension is
infinite?
Regards
Zinnic
zinnic
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:41:52 -0700, Sir Frederick
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:31:07 GMT, Art <n...@zilch.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:00:09 -0700, Sir Frederick
> >><mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Could quantum effects explain consciousness?
> >>>20 October 2007
> >>>NewScientist.com news service
> >>>Zeeya Merali
>
> >>>WITH its triumphant descriptions of a range of subatomic phenomena, quantum mechanics is one of the most successful scientific
> >>>theories of all time. Now it holds out the tantalising prospect of explaining one of the great mysteries in biology: the nature of
> >>>consciousness. It may even explain why dreams are dream-like.
>
> >>>These hopes stem from a quantum model of consciousness developed by Efstratios Manousakis of Florida State University, Tallahassee.
> >>>It is inspired by the "image flips" the brain makes when faced with an ambiguous image such as the one to the right, which can look
> >>>like either a vase or two faces. Psychologists have long been fascinated by the fact that the brain cannot consciously perceive both
> >>>versions simultaneously.
>
> >>>Understanding how the brain switches between these versions might shed light on how the conscious experience is generated. "If we
> >>>can pinpoint what is different about the brain when someone is conscious versus unconscious of the image, we could solve one of the
> >>>biggest questions left in science," says Olivia Carter, a visual psychologist at Harvard University.
>
Art, do you accept that there is a point at which "the deeper inner
Sir Frederick
I'm not saying "folk lore" is ad hoc false. It often is pragmatic in a context.
That context is variable and includes the stories we tell, old and new.
In the present context, I feel the need for new folk lore (understanding).
love,
Martin
Art
Yes. We know that conventional means of communication
of profound mystical insights/experiences fail. It seems such personal
experiences can't be communicated via thought transferrence
to adepts either. So the mystical way is a personal/individual way
rather than a social and intellectual one (like the sciences and
philosophy).
But in addition, I think that it's probably impossible in the human
incarnated condition to grasp it all in any event.
>If so, will not humans then have to make do with "fairy tales and
>illusions"
>Regards
>Zinnic
I don't view my own understanding as "fairy tales and illusions",
of course. I view my own partial grasp of what I consider to
be the realities underpinning physical/material reality to be
not only communicable but both intellectually and spiritually
satisfying as well. I see advances in our scientific understandings
progressing along these lines. I won't live long enough to see
the "para" prefix dropped from "paranormal" but I see signs
that this may happen in the future.
Look at it this way, Zinnic. Physicists still take time as a
fundamental, whether it's four dimensional spacetime or
whatever. They nor anyone else have a clue about what
time is, or how to derive it from something more fundamental.
What's the difference between that situation and me (and
a few professional philosophers) taking consciousness as
a fundamental? Why is it that someone who takes consciousness
as fundamental is accused of believing in fairy tales while
physicists aren't? :)
John Jones
The example itself, that employs the use of two possible images, is a
monument to truncated reason. Images don't exist in their own right. A
pencil drawing perceived as either a duck or a rabbit is not in itself
either a duck or rabbit, that the brain 'perceives'.
This transparant nonsense from our neurobiologists is matched by the
poverty of interpretation of experience that only a physically based
theory can offer. Just awful.
pico
"Art" <nu...@zilch.com> wrote in message
news:e5jhh3tcc7o9c3d8a...@4ax.com...
> Look at it this way, Zinnic. Physicists still take time as a
> fundamental, whether it's four dimensional spacetime or
> whatever. They nor anyone else have a clue about what
> time is, or how to derive it from something more fundamental.
> What's the difference between that situation and me (and
> a few professional philosophers) taking consciousness as
> a fundamental? Why is it that someone who takes consciousness
> as fundamental is accused of believing in fairy tales while
> physicists aren't? :)
In the domain of professional academics, we call that a Zinger! :)
zinnic
Z
Wordsmith
> Could quantum effects explain consciousness?
> 20 October 2007
> NewScientist.com news service
> Zeeya Merali
>
> WITH its triumphant descriptions of a range of subatomic phenomena, quantum mechanics is one of the most successful scientific
> theories of all time. Now it holds out the tantalising prospect of explaining one of the great mysteries in biology: the nature of
> consciousness. It may even explain why dreams are dream-like.
>
> These hopes stem from a quantum model of consciousness developed by Efstratios Manousakis of Florida State University, Tallahassee.
> It is inspired by the "image flips" the brain makes when faced with an ambiguous image such as the one to the right, which can look
> like either a vase or two faces. Psychologists have long been fascinated by the fact that the brain cannot consciously perceive both
> versions simultaneously.
>
> Understanding how the brain switches between these versions might shed light on how the conscious experience is generated. "If we
> can pinpoint what is different about the brain when someone is conscious versus unconscious of the image, we could solve one of the
> biggest questions left in science," says Olivia Carter, a visual psychologist at Harvard University.
>
> however, think Manousakis's model is enough to explain the origin of consciousness, as it requires some form of external
> consciousness to be in place to observe the quantum state to cause it to collapse. By contrast, in the Penrose-Hameroff model,
> quantum states within microtubules can collapse without any need for external consciousness. He also notes that the numbers
> Manousakis has calculated for the frequency of oscillations in binocular rivalry fit well with the Penrose-Hameroff model and could
> be created using quantum states spread over microtubules from around 1000 neurons.
>
> Among those who remain unconvinced by the whole idea of a quantum basis for consciousness is Hugh Wilson, a visual neuroscientist at
> York University in Ontario, Canada, who is also trained in physics. "The brain is a macroscopic object," he says. "Just as quantum
> processes aren't significant in determining the behaviour of other large objects, such as baseballs, I don't think they are
> significant in determining the workings of consciousness."
>
> From issue 2626 of New Scientist magazine, 20 October 2007, page 10-11
> Six legs, two eyes, one photon
> Can you turn a cockroach into a quantum photon detector? Patrick Suppes at Stanford University in California is attempting this feat
> to determine whether quantum mechanics really could be at work in the brain.
>
> Quantum mechanics isn't usually invoked to explain how the eye and the brain respond to incoming light. Even in dim light, our eyes
> are swamped by photons, and the laws of classical physics are enough to explain how our brains respond to its intensity. Some insect
> eyes are much more sensitive, however, and it is possible that they can pick out single photons, Suppes says.
>
> Suppes and Jose Acacio de Barros of San Francisco State University in California have devised an experiment to test this.
> Cockroaches are at home in very dim environments, says Suppes, who presented his plans at the Quantum Interactions conference at
> Stanford earlier this year. The researchers intend to teach the cockroaches that they will receive a reward if they move towards a
> light source. They will then fire single photons from a laser at these "Pavlov cockroaches" to see if they react.
>
> A positive result will show that quantum phenomena can be picked out and manipulated by the brain, Suppes says. "We don't usually
> give insects credit for walking on the edge of the quantum-classical divide," he adds, "but we may soon have to."
Quantum mechanics is a shallow box. Consciousness is a bottomless
pit.
W : )
Chris H. Fleming
> Could quantum effects explain consciousness?
> 20 October 2007
> NewScientist.com news service
> Zeeya Merali
>
> WITH its triumphant descriptions of a range of subatomic phenomena, quantum mechanics is one of the most successful scientific
> theories of all time. Now it holds out the tantalising prospect of explaining one of the great mysteries in biology: the nature of
> consciousness. It may even explain why dreams are dream-like.
>
> These hopes stem from a quantum model of consciousness developed by Efstratios Manousakis of Florida State University, Tallahassee.
> It is inspired by the "image flips" the brain makes when faced with an ambiguous image such as the one to the right, which can look
> like either a vase or two faces. Psychologists have long been fascinated by the fact that the brain cannot consciously perceive both
> versions simultaneously.
>
> Understanding how the brain switches between these versions might shed light on how the conscious experience is generated. "If we
> can pinpoint what is different about the brain when someone is conscious versus unconscious of the image, we could solve one of the
> biggest questions left in science," says Olivia Carter, a visual psychologist at Harvard University.
>
> however, think Manousakis's model is enough to explain the origin of consciousness, as it requires some form of external
> consciousness to be in place to observe the quantum state to cause it to collapse. By contrast, in the Penrose-Hameroff model,
> quantum states within microtubules can collapse without any need for external consciousness. He also notes that the numbers
> Manousakis has calculated for the frequency of oscillations in binocular rivalry fit well with the Penrose-Hameroff model and could
> be created using quantum states spread over microtubules from around 1000 neurons.
>
> Among those who remain unconvinced by the whole idea of a quantum basis for consciousness is Hugh Wilson, a visual neuroscientist at
> York University in Ontario, Canada, who is also trained in physics. "The brain is a macroscopic object," he says. "Just as quantum
> processes aren't significant in determining the behaviour of other large objects, such as baseballs, I don't think they are
> significant in determining the workings of consciousness."
>
> From issue 2626 of New Scientist magazine, 20 October 2007, page 10-11
> Six legs, two eyes, one photon
> Can you turn a cockroach into a quantum photon detector? Patrick Suppes at Stanford University in California is attempting this feat
> to determine whether quantum mechanics really could be at work in the brain.
>
> Quantum mechanics isn't usually invoked to explain how the eye and the brain respond to incoming light. Even in dim light, our eyes
> are swamped by photons, and the laws of classical physics are enough to explain how our brains respond to its intensity. Some insect
> eyes are much more sensitive, however, and it is possible that they can pick out single photons, Suppes says.
>
> Suppes and Jose Acacio de Barros of San Francisco State University in California have devised an experiment to test this.
> Cockroaches are at home in very dim environments, says Suppes, who presented his plans at the Quantum Interactions conference at
> Stanford earlier this year. The researchers intend to teach the cockroaches that they will receive a reward if they move towards a
> light source. They will then fire single photons from a laser at these "Pavlov cockroaches" to see if they react.
>
> A positive result will show that quantum phenomena can be picked out and manipulated by the brain, Suppes says. "We don't usually
> give insects credit for walking on the edge of the quantum-classical divide," he adds, "but we may soon have to."
Sir Roger's conjectures about quantum gravity effects in microtubules
are long debunked. That all smells pretty fishy to me.
pico
"Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192827538.9...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Sir Roger's conjectures about quantum gravity effects in microtubules
> are long debunked. That all smells pretty fishy to me.
Can you point us to an authortative article, please?
Ta,
brian fletcher
>
> <snip>
>
> This is a typical example of "promissory materialism". Note the usual
> phrases and words "tantalising prospect", "hopes", "might shed
> light", etc.
>
> Art
> http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
Indeed. Being "conscious of" is different from "being conscious".
BOfL
brian fletcher
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:925hh3pehm68ois3g...@4ax.com...
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>This is a typical example of "promissory materialism". Note the usual
>>phrases and words "tantalising prospect", "hopes", "might shed
>>light", etc.
>>
> I tend to agree. It may be that the actual situation
> is so "weird" that we can't even consider it.
> But these magazines have a market,
> so they produce stuff that is at least relatively
> comprehensible. Perhaps like Sci-Fi.
> This(quantum consciousness) is a perennial topic here,
> so there is some interest, and it is easy to copy and paste
> for sharing.
>
> I like to think in terms of higher dimensions with associated
> higher intelligence, though like the "Flatland" denizens it is
> actually beyond me. Of course the whole thing smacks of
> mysticism, spirit and mystery talk, that's folk lore, I'm full of that.
> So new considerations are entertaining no matter how hackneyed.
First "become conscious" and then recognise what you are conscious of.
The phrase "smack of mysticism", tends to reverse..such as "smacks of
scientific investigation";-)
BOfL
brian fletcher
If is is "graspable" we each ahve a capacity to grasp.
The initial difficulty we each have with this view, initially at least, is
all of our learning is from the group perception.
This applies equally to groups of scientists or philosophers.
To say "they" dont have a clue what time is, is a good example.
Even when one steps out of the established wisdom of each particular
discipline, there is pressure to conform.
BOfL
ZerkonX
> They nor anyone else have a clue about what
> time is, or how to derive it from something more fundamental.
Howboutdis:
Change. Time is derived from change.
Substitute 'change' for 'time' as a dimension. In order to conceive any of
the other three you must change a point along an axis.
Art
wrote:
Other three? What do you mean by other three?
Define change. Define your axis without assuming time in the first
place. You must elaborate here considerably and beware of circularity.
pico
"ZerkonX" <ZER...@zerkonx.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.10.20....@zerkonx.net...
Width, Depth, Height, change? So we have space-change instead of
space-time?
Intriguing! I see the human being as living in a moment he cannot sense;
he is always a moment in the past. The present is unknown to him; it is not
available to language or higher cognitive levels. The difference he imagines
between a past event and the near-present (the moment) is an effort of
recapitulation. Humans use various heuristics to rationalize the past of
an object; in some cases it is the shape of the object. The Zen state "of
being in the moment" is the suspension of rationalization, cessation of
heuristics.
Art
>
>"ZerkonX" <ZER...@zerkonx.net> wrote in message
>news:pan.2007.10.20....@zerkonx.net...
>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:21:52 +0000, Art wrote:
>>
>>> They nor anyone else have a clue about what
>>> time is, or how to derive it from something more fundamental.
>>
>> Howboutdis:
>>
>> Change. Time is derived from change.
>>
>> Substitute 'change' for 'time' as a dimension. In order to conceive any of
>> the other three you must change a point along an axis.
>
>Width, Depth, Height, change? So we have space-change instead of
>space-time?
Space change with respect to what? How does space change account
for the perception of a object in motion? Doesn't the term "change"
assume time in a circular fashion?
ZerkonX
> Space change with respect to what? How does space change account
> for the perception of a object in motion? Doesn't the term "change"
> assume time in a circular fashion?
As far as circular, no, but here is something very exciting to think
about, at least to me. It would seem circular but that would imply exact
replication which does not happen (or is this an argument?) It seems
more a spiral but here the relationships are only seen along a line. There
seems to be a need to factor in 'force' like a magnetic field that makes
relationships trans-linear. Now to form this up into a
conceivable geometric shape...? Or, is one needed?
Well, change would be space. You do raise the point of points though, at
least in my consideration of the matter. That is, "perception" relative to
change. Or, to acquiesce to the perpetual limitations of all things,
"perception" as a result of change and so can it be a substitute.
If perception, itself, were to be considered a dimension, this would be
ultimately unsatisfying but maybe the most accurate. I do not like this
idea at all. It does demand that "subjectivity" always be
considered as 'real' as anything else. Horrible but I see no way out of
this, do you? So with whatever dimensional definition, there should also
be the dimension of observation, therefore, perception and so
consciousness.
Chris H. Fleming
> "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192827538.9...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Sir Roger's conjectures about quantum gravity effects in microtubules
> > are long debunked. That all smells pretty fishy to me.
>
> Can you point us to an authortative article, please?
> Ta,
Tegmark, Phys. Rev. E, 61, 4194-4206
Here is a public copy on the archive
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009v2
The brain is simply too classical and too hot to expect any mesoscopic
or macroscopic quantum effects.
There is also nothing magical about quantum mechanics that can explain
the hard problem of consciousness.
As a specialist in quantum open systems, I say this with some
authority.
Penrose is a genius and has made enormous contributions to physics,
specifically in the field of gravity. But he sometimes has odd ideas,
specifically in the field of quantum mechanics. I heard him present
his new ideas on cosmology that purport to solve the inflation problem
and the black hole entropy problem. I thought it was about as nutty as
this microtubules stuff. Everyone should be allowed to have nutty
ideas though. You never know if they will turn out to be true. The
microtubule stuff is long debunked though. For a "specialist" to be
talking about it as a possibility pretty much means that they don't
know what they are talking about.
Art
wrote:
As I had stated, nobody knows how time arises. My own speculations
are focused in the area of what I'll call the "formative" ... the
arena of pre-matter still unknown to physicists. Another way of
looking at the formative is to think of it as the implied order or
"implicate order" that physicist David Bohm had discussed at length.
I suspect that in the formative phase of matter creation, "vibrations"
exist ... such as in the string theories of physics. Conscious energy
creates the vibrating strings. These vibrations might be considered
as "pre-time" or part of "formative time". Electromagnetic energy
as we know it, eventually emerges, as does matter from this
formative arena not yet known or understood by physicists. As
soon as you have the known electromagnetic spectrum of
wavelengths/frequencies ... and matter ... you have clocks and
thus time. Note that in my view, time, matter and space are
continuously (or contiguously) created.
I think the usual "common sense" notion of time arises from
brain mechanics. The brain, I think, is "hard wired" to work
with the "final product" (beyond the formative) or expletive
order (to use Bohm's terminology again). The brain thus deals
with physical/material reality. Mystics working with the mind and
not the brain perceive the underlying timeless order.
pico
> On Oct 19, 5:28 pm, "pico" <pico.pico.pico.net> wrote:
>> "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1192827538.9...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Sir Roger's conjectures about quantum gravity effects in microtubules
>> > are long debunked. That all smells pretty fishy to me.
>>
>> Can you point us to an authortative article, please?
>> Ta,
>
>
> Tegmark, Phys. Rev. E, 61, 4194-4206
> Here is a public copy on the archive
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009v2
Very helpful, thank you, Chris.
Best,
Pico
ZerkonX
> Other three? What do you mean by other three?
I am going from the framework of height, width, depth. If we deal outside
of this, ok by me. Name it.
> Define change. Define your axis without assuming time in the first
> place. You must elaborate here considerably and beware of circularity.
I am starting by denying time altogether other than as a metaphorical
derivative of change.
By change I mean difference within continuity or sameness.
So, an axis is defined by the change between points.
Time and math are necessary rational and reasonable functions to make
finite steps inside of the infinity of change. They are tools of reality
to reality but they are nothing more or less than internal functions.
If we do not shift away from the idea that the universe has
observable dimensional properties of height, width and depth and if
another dimension is to be put in place, then change, rather the tool
of time, seems most appropriate.
pico
Art
>"Art" <nu...@zilch.com> wrote in message
>news:ec3nh359thc5cnjvd...@4ax.com...
Pico, you quoted what I wrote but there was no reply. Newsreader
glitch?
pico
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:31:02 -0500, "pico" <pico.pico.net> wrote:
>
>>"Art" <nu...@zilch.com> wrote in message
>>news:ec3nh359thc5cnjvd...@4ax.com...
>
> Pico, you quoted what I wrote but there was no reply. Newsreader
> glitch?
I fat-fingered it, Art and now I don't remember what I wrote.
ZerkonX
> As I had stated, nobody knows how time arises.
I have taken it for granted that it arose from first the change in the
sun's location and constellation location, expanded to the lunar and
seasonal cycles. Then this was 'digitized' into numbers via dials, then
clock ticks then atomic counting. All of which made change, now
forced into a set of sequential numbers, metaphor for change.
Then "Have Numbers, Will formulate"
tidyw...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:08:27 +0000, Art wrote:
> > As I had stated, nobody knows how time arises.>>
perhaps an elephant, whose tail end is the only position seen.
ZerkonX
> perhaps an elephant, whose tail end is the only position seen.
There is certainly something to this, seems to me.
For instance, it is thought that our solar system, our sun, has traveled
around the center of the galaxy, the Milky Way, all of 18-22 times.
It stands to reason that there is a good possibility that the
galaxy is itself orbiting around the center of something which also orbits
something else... Maybe, maybe not. After all, as you say, it is perhaps
just a tail end.
teledyn
> "Chris H. Fleming" <chris_h_flem...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1192984632....@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
The Tegmark paper is not a 'debunking', it is a challenge at best, and
just read that paragraph leading the conclusions: How can they account
for ALL computations in the brain when we don't know how to detect
brain computations? As for the booming AI, oh yes indeed, trackballs,
translators so error prone radio hosts use them for lyrics obfuscation
contests, and Deep Though, well, you just try to tell Deep Thought
you'd like to _buy_ its queen, and then ask the same question of any 2
year old child.
I'm not saying Penrose is right, I'm only saying Tegmark is not a
disproof of him, and Tegmark further does not provide any testable
hypotheses or falsification conditions, which is also true of Penrose,
but Hammeroff does as does Manousakis, and Manousakis also provides
confirmation of his theory by his predictions matching the LSD
experiment. True, that is not 'proof', but science does not progress
by proofs, it progresses by theories, better tests, better theories.
As for Tegmark's main complaint, echoed very frequently in this
thread, that the brain simply cannot be quantum-affected because it
simply can't, let us remember that the American engineering society
tried to disprove the Wright Bros Kittyhawk flights for /two years/
after the fact, because "it could not be" and biologists were only
able to adequately explain the bumblebee last year.
teledyn
arXiv for a list of all papers keyed to "quantum consciousness"; very
good reading on both sides of the fence, and among the noise, gems
like http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0602144
and my personal favourite:
"On the Unfathomableness of Consciousness by Consciousness: Why do
physicists widely agree on the assured extent of their professional
knowledge, but not so philosophers?"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610011
zinnic
> it is actually pretty instructive (and less rhetorical) to simply ask
> arXiv for a list of all papers keyed to "quantum consciousness"; very
> good reading on both sides of the fence, and among the noise, gems
> and my personal favourite:
>
> "On the Unfathomableness of Consciousness by Consciousness: Why do
> physicists widely agree on the assured extent of their professional
> knowledge, but not so philosophers?"http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610011
Thanks for the great link. It remains an insoluble mystery to me as
why so many are unable to accept the intrinsic limitation of brain
function but continue to seek the infinite in mysticism.
Zinnic
pico
news:1193404707.9...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> The Tegmark paper is not a 'debunking', it is a challenge at best, and
> just read that paragraph leading the conclusions: How can they account
> for ALL computations in the brain when we don't know how to detect
> brain computations? As for the booming AI, oh yes indeed, trackballs,
> translators so error prone radio hosts use them for lyrics obfuscation
> contests, and Deep Though, well, you just try to tell Deep Thought
> you'd like to _buy_ its queen, and then ask the same question of any 2
> year old child.
>
> I'm not saying Penrose is right, I'm only saying Tegmark is not a
> disproof of him, and Tegmark further does not provide any testable
> hypotheses or falsification conditions, which is also true of Penrose,
> but Hammeroff does as does Manousakis, and Manousakis also provides
> confirmation of his theory by his predictions matching the LSD
> experiment. True, that is not 'proof', but science does not progress
> by proofs, it progresses by theories, better tests, better theories.
>
> As for Tegmark's main complaint, echoed very frequently in this
> thread, that the brain simply cannot be quantum-affected because it
> simply can't, let us remember that the American engineering society
> tried to disprove the Wright Bros Kittyhawk flights for /two years/
> after the fact, because "it could not be" and biologists were only
> able to adequately explain the bumblebee last year.
That's what I needed to read. I was perplexed by the study. It was a
challenge based upon a mathematical liklihood that itself seems untenable.
pico
Great pointers. If you teach, I want to be your student.
Chris H. Fleming
Loads of bullshit. You aren't even following the arguments.
How does one make macroscopic quantum effects in an environment which
is hot and classical?
Penrose offers a conjecture, the microtubule. Tegmark shoots it down.
End of story.
Chris H. Fleming
> it is actually pretty instructive (and less rhetorical) to simply ask
> arXiv for a list of all papers keyed to "quantum consciousness"; very
> good reading on both sides of the fence, and among the noise, gems
> and my personal favourite:
>
> "On the Unfathomableness of Consciousness by Consciousness: Why do
> physicists widely agree on the assured extent of their professional
> knowledge, but not so philosophers?"http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610011
There is no peer review for archive papers. Surveying papers there, to
try to figure out the scientific opinion on a particular subject isn't
a wise thing to do.