Debunking Quantum Mind

[charles43110]

ok kid, let me get to the bottom line. You do not "think" that "it" is an active law of physics because it involves the human mind. hmmmm So our thoughts have no mathematical basis? Not scientific enough for you? You think too much. Try imperical evidence on. Without hands on experience do not preach. Your opinion is no better than being in Church. Its just an off the top of your head "thought" without observational proof. Just your random thought. PROVE IT WRONG.

[RealityQuestioned]

0:01 - 0:22 says it all

[JohananRaatz]

Does anyone want to try to give an explanation for phenomenon such as free will that DO NOT use quantum mechanics in some way?

[enkiavatar]

@JohananRaatz yes read anything by Marvin Minsky. Society of Mind is a good laymen intro into the subject. Also, generally re 'free will' consider the entire field of Statistical Mechanics (aka Statistical Thermodynamics) or Information Theory or general Probability Theory. You can get indeterminacy w/o resorting to new age hypotheses. Michael Bratman has numerous books on the subject of intention (aka free will)

[JohananRaatz]

@enkiavatar Well this is likely -and there may be true indeterminacy "bleeded over" into the mesolevel from QM -nanotechnology is discovering this more and more. Though I don't see anything particularly new agey about Penrose's model.

[enkiavatar]

@JohananRaatz Look anything is possible, just highly improbable or so the saying goes. (broken up into two due to space constraints)

[enkiavatar]

The point is that mental phenomenon doesn't require quantum inputs to exist. So it becomes a probability and consistency question. Nature abhors unnecessary complexity. So unless we're willing to assume a 'creator' but insist on deducing how animate matter develops from inanimate matter, then we must ask why would normal carbohydrates suddenly gain quantum properties solely as a result of being suspended in an ionized water solution?

[JohananRaatz]

@enkiavatar "carbohydrates suddenly gain quantum properties"

Well remember, they already have quantum properties. Quantum effects are a lot more common place at the meso-scale than people realize. Nanotechnologists are beginning to find this out more and more. They're not quite the same as full blown qp effects but they are there. So it's not as implausible as it seems -it's actually fairly common place.

As for free will. Kochen and Conway produced a theorem linking free will to QM.

[IlC4RL0SIl]

debunking is a strong word if you dont have absolute proof that the consciousness mind does have nothing to do nor effect with qp. its your opinion thats all

[JohananRaatz]

Ok, if the mind is not quantum mechanical then how can it possibly be physical? If the mind is not quantum mechanical then it is not fundamental. However we know the mind is fundamental a priori as we can see that the Cartesian ego can not be cut in half.

The only other alternative that allows for a Cartesian ego (ie. a mind) is substance dualism, but that is incompatible with the idea of physical laws.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

I think one can still argue that consciousness or awareness is not computable... and that simulating an organic medium utilizing neurotransmitter-type computation is very hard if not impossible... But I think the Penrose/Hameroff line of thinking is not convincing for making the case against the computability of consciousness/awareness.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Very much appreciate your videos on this subject. Bought a book by Penrose hashing out his theory. I find the Orch-OR Penrose/Hameroff model to be incoherent. Most of my recent studies lead me to conclude that consciousness, attention, or awareness -- and the sense of self -- require the recruitment of vast networks of neurons distributed throughout the brain. I don't see how quantum fluctuations would have much of an effect on the circuits...

[JohananRaatz]

@PianoIsTheRemedy But there are elements of consciousness that are irreducibly simple -qualia, simple concepts and the ego all come to mind. Why would something complex be needed to generate something irreducibly simple? Now high complexity is necessary for computation to occur, but consciousness in and of itself does not require a "deep-thinking" consciousness.

[jonesgerard]

Havn't watched the whole video yet but you do sound quite reasonable.

[rbolo29]

Non-locality, reverse casuality, quantum entanglement and quantum mind. All interesting topics that go well together.

[kite909]

see whether you call it the quantum mind or the universal mind the point is everything is connected and gods message is be positive so until you can do experiments in a lab or have the knowlage to explain the bigger picture QUIT YOUTUBeING

[brattle28]

The quantum non-locality is not excepted by the ego

[zenlama]

You sound like a politician telling us all the things your going to talk about without saying anything. "let me say this about that" Blah blah blah.

[hyperseauton]

...yes. There is no connection, but I don't understand why you "debunk" then these theories, if your metaphysics includes barely more than the scientific methodology.

[MrJohnJamal]

Quantum mechanics doesn't produce a picture of Mind itself, but it does explain how the Mind process things. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, anyone?

[NoLies86]

@MrJohnJamal...perfectly put.

[ICANGO247]

Although I don't agree with all of the quantum mind mumbo jumbo. I do believe quantum processes play a key role in the way the brain functions. I believe the brain is microscopically built to take advantage of things like superposition and entanglement, and that these are largely responsible for the consciouss experience. But that's an obvious deduction from what we know. I think anyone who claims to know anymore than that is fooling themselves and everyone else.

[NoLies86]

@ICANGO247....AGREED....well put....you have an intuition, but rationally use your skepticism due to incomplete evidence. There's definitely something going on with decoherence and the mind---but figuring out how it works is going to be the next scientific revolution. All the evidence points to something of that nature buried deep within the quantum mechanical mathematics.

[tk050305cnx]

Good argument.

I am likewise sceptical (and occasionally amused) by the effort of certain people who bend quantum mechanics in order to explain mind/consciousness. It must be a symptom of the terminal stages of materialism. :)

Consciousness is nonphysical. Why even try to explain in physical terms?

[NoLies86]

@tk050305cnx...Explaining the mind through quantum mechanics per se is not possible. However, quantum mechanics points us in a direction where the reality we perceive might not be the actual mind-independent reality we think it is. This is NOT an argument for solipsism. It is saying that in order to talk about reality we must discover a language (i'm inclined it is math) that can reveal it for us. The problem now is whether this language is descriptive or just predictive. Hopefully both!

[14bebop14]

@tk050305cnx To combine the two worlds so people STFU and simply start living rather than fighting over something so futile.

[hitballfootler]

I read on Wikipedia that the Copenhagen is the most accepted view but you said no one accepts it anymore. I am confused especially since you referenced the page. So could you help me out?

[flyinhawaiian43]

FYI, I'm fairly certain that a majority of physicists still subscribe to the Copenhagen Interpretation, despite its apparent paradoxes. Not that I'm arguing for it, just thought I should point that out.

[cardellacole1]

It is the neutron that (within the diatolic reaction) travels into the photon and experiences the diamentional distance traveled in the moment (or event) of space-time . It is the photon which experiences the mergence within the neutron envelope = love is the force that holds wave and particle together and is your PERCEPTION .

[j11j11j11j11]

i'm in the middle of reading the 'cosmic code', a good quantum mechanics survey book for laymen like me. the book is a couple decades old, and if i understand you right that people generally nowadays accept that reality is non-local, then a lot has changed. also, in the book it seems to present the copenhagen interpretation as accepted--that quantum objective reality does not exist. sounds like this has changed too. can anyone recommend a newer book? anyway i look forward to listening in.

[LordImmolation]

Sorry I didn't see this before. I would recommend John Gribbon's excellent books "In search of Shrodinger's cat", but better still the sequel "Shrodinger's kittens" - both excellent books and reasonably upto date.

[NoLies86]

@LordImmolation...yes John Gribbon is always good. However, if you want a comprehensive view of the subject read "Physic and Philosophy" by Bernard D'Espagnat. It is the most sophisticated book on the subject, written by a man who has been working on the problem for most of his life. He was taught by DeBroglie.

[MaBu888]

I didn't watch this video, but I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. Nondualism, though, in useful forms and in moderation, is a way to go!

[StevenErnest]

Good stuff! I accept some of Eastern philosophy and Western Hermeticism, but I agree that people are bending Quantum Physics to fit their system.

Just because our measuring a sub-atomic event affects it, doesn't mean "our minds create reality."

"What the Bleep" really pissed me off: it's psychologically dangerous and naive to suggest the Marlee Matlin character could just "will" herself out of her mental problems, and toss her meds into the trash.

Looking forward to your series, LordImm.

[trick0171]

Debunk away. I personally do not agree with certain "conclusions" of the Copenhagen Interpretation and certain conclusions of "randomness" at the quantum level.

[EverettsVLOG]

hopefully you say something i disagree with so i can participate Lol

[SpiritualAtheist]

I'm with wukdar. Bring on the vids!

[mrurtbay]

Very interested in watching this series.