I'll happily accept that I have a very hard time imagining how an algorithmic computation could be the redness of red, but I have just as hard a time imagining how a quantum computation could be the redness of red.
Quantum consciousness may be testable, but it hasn't been tested. For one to properly test whether consciousness consists as collapsing wave functions in neuronal microtubules one would have to confirm that changes in the quantum effects happening wihtin microtubules correlate closely with the moment to moment changes in the content of conscious experience. (cont.)..
..(cont.) No such experiment has been carried out. And if such an experiment is impossible, then quantum consciousness is untestable. On the contrary, we known that changes in *neuronal* firing patterns correlate extremely closely with the moment-to-moment changes in one's conscious experience.
I wanted to address another point. Your rejection that classical effects can lead to consciousness. How do you know? How has this hypothesis been falsified? Or is that a hunch? Why should we accept your hunch?
I don't know if you were addressing any comments I made, but my beef is with people co-opting and misusing science to promote their own BS. I have nothing against anyone using it for legitimate inquiry. But if your going to try to stipulate that processes on the quantum level have a *direct* effect on macro processes, such as consciousness, there better be some damn solid evidence for it.
@HeavyTrafficAhead : fair enough but the QM and bio worlds are not separate spaces. We know for example some molecules induce anesthetic states, yes? Molecules. What realm of science says how molecules will interact. QM. QM plays a role as there is no other canidate for describing those interaction. We are only asking which phenomenon and where... given consciousness is a chemical process, it's sure that qm is involved.
@pyrrho314 Yes but it's not the quarks making up the molecule that directly cause the effect. It's the indirect quantum process, determining the nature of matter/energy, that does give that molecule those properties. But what I'm hearing in this whole theory is that those quanta have a direct effect on macro processes. Granted my knowledge of QM is limited, but my understanding is that there is no way some quark is interacting on your neurons to give you 'consciousness'. Sorry, not buying it
our subjective experience? its the objective forces that has created and continue to force our brains into a completly rational view of our world its the fear of death torture even that the powerful use to manipulate our minds into believing that our world is this hell and our subjective processes are to insignifigant a force to make the rational world free from that fear
(cont) For Penrose and Hameroff, which unknown yet testable predictable property of "conciousness" do they describe? I don't know of a single one. It's not a constructive model of conciousness. The claim that QM explains it without constructively showing how it actually does is not scientific, it's not constructive, and it is in fact not falsifiable as stated. After all if microtubules fail, perhaps its DNA, or something else.
Aether was a bad theory also because it was based on no data.
@socrates856 um, they are not at the point of testing that, what is being tested are things like "can the structure of microtubes compute"... or for example they are trying to show that there are qubits in the tubulin. They do so by predicting behavior and experiments are either consistent with that or not. It can be falsified eventually with such experiments and those of their peers.
You are wrong about Aether... that light was a wave implied it needed a medium to propagate (wave theory).
@pyrrho314 I'm not wrong about the aether. To state that wave phenomena imply a medium is incorrect, classical Maxwell/Heaviside EM theory survives unscathed without the aether. In fact the either does not appear anywhere in Maxwell's equation. The aether theory was modeled on analogy, not on data. There is and never was any data supporting that an aether existed. It should be seen as a cautionary tale of using analogy not data to form theories.
Exactly. So without any data it has been postulated that qubits are possible/might exist in microtubules. What is the merit of that hypothesis in the absence of any data?
Falsifiability is a very weak requirement. Many specific gods are falsifiable. They just haven't been falsified yet.
I can invent an infinity of falsifiable theories that live in a space without evidence. By doing that I waste people's time. Provide evidence with your hypothesis, and we talk science.
Lots to respond to. Will come later. To start, you keep forgetting data. The greeks and chinese did not speculate that the earth was round. They knew. And the reason why they new is because the data fit the theory. So rather than the theory being falsified they got repeatedly confirmed in any case in which it applied.
That is science. Predictive theories that are accuate in that observation confirms them. (cont)
@socrates856 : jfor example they are debating now if the brain is too warm for the type of phenomenon that Hameroff is theorizing. They are debating how much information is storable in tubulin based microtubes.
They have discovered that: microtubes are used for sensation and locomotion and not just rigid structure. that microtubes can be used to compute classically, at least. in their role in sensing (i.e. light) and locomotion involve computation to convert chemical signals to action.
@pyrrho314 No I'm pretty sure that some Bohemian peasant in the 14th century didn't know and probably thought the world was flat. also thought that goblins lived in the nearby forest and couldn't read either. But the knowledge of the Earth being round was a lot more prevalent than is generally understood today.
Cool subject. I thought Plato wrote about a spherical earth in Timaeus and Phaedo.
Barklord 9 months ago
I'll happily accept that I have a very hard time imagining how an algorithmic computation could be the redness of red, but I have just as hard a time imagining how a quantum computation could be the redness of red.
nspeert 9 months ago
Quantum consciousness may be testable, but it hasn't been tested. For one to properly test whether consciousness consists as collapsing wave functions in neuronal microtubules one would have to confirm that changes in the quantum effects happening wihtin microtubules correlate closely with the moment to moment changes in the content of conscious experience. (cont.)..
nspeert 9 months ago
..(cont.) No such experiment has been carried out. And if such an experiment is impossible, then quantum consciousness is untestable. On the contrary, we known that changes in *neuronal* firing patterns correlate extremely closely with the moment-to-moment changes in one's conscious experience.
nspeert 9 months ago
I wanted to address another point. Your rejection that classical effects can lead to consciousness. How do you know? How has this hypothesis been falsified? Or is that a hunch? Why should we accept your hunch?
socrates856 9 months ago
I don't know if you were addressing any comments I made, but my beef is with people co-opting and misusing science to promote their own BS. I have nothing against anyone using it for legitimate inquiry. But if your going to try to stipulate that processes on the quantum level have a *direct* effect on macro processes, such as consciousness, there better be some damn solid evidence for it.
HeavyTrafficAhead 9 months ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead : fair enough but the QM and bio worlds are not separate spaces. We know for example some molecules induce anesthetic states, yes? Molecules. What realm of science says how molecules will interact. QM. QM plays a role as there is no other canidate for describing those interaction. We are only asking which phenomenon and where... given consciousness is a chemical process, it's sure that qm is involved.
pyrrho314 9 months ago
@pyrrho314 Yes but it's not the quarks making up the molecule that directly cause the effect. It's the indirect quantum process, determining the nature of matter/energy, that does give that molecule those properties. But what I'm hearing in this whole theory is that those quanta have a direct effect on macro processes. Granted my knowledge of QM is limited, but my understanding is that there is no way some quark is interacting on your neurons to give you 'consciousness'. Sorry, not buying it
HeavyTrafficAhead 9 months ago
our subjective experience? its the objective forces that has created and continue to force our brains into a completly rational view of our world its the fear of death torture even that the powerful use to manipulate our minds into believing that our world is this hell and our subjective processes are to insignifigant a force to make the rational world free from that fear
atontearmont 9 months ago
who are you having this discussion with?
gratex 9 months ago
Yeah!
BeyondWrittenWords 9 months ago
(cont) For Penrose and Hameroff, which unknown yet testable predictable property of "conciousness" do they describe? I don't know of a single one. It's not a constructive model of conciousness. The claim that QM explains it without constructively showing how it actually does is not scientific, it's not constructive, and it is in fact not falsifiable as stated. After all if microtubules fail, perhaps its DNA, or something else.
Aether was a bad theory also because it was based on no data.
TBC.
socrates856 9 months ago
@socrates856 um, they are not at the point of testing that, what is being tested are things like "can the structure of microtubes compute"... or for example they are trying to show that there are qubits in the tubulin. They do so by predicting behavior and experiments are either consistent with that or not. It can be falsified eventually with such experiments and those of their peers.
You are wrong about Aether... that light was a wave implied it needed a medium to propagate (wave theory).
pyrrho314 9 months ago
@pyrrho314 I'm not wrong about the aether. To state that wave phenomena imply a medium is incorrect, classical Maxwell/Heaviside EM theory survives unscathed without the aether. In fact the either does not appear anywhere in Maxwell's equation. The aether theory was modeled on analogy, not on data. There is and never was any data supporting that an aether existed. It should be seen as a cautionary tale of using analogy not data to form theories.
socrates856 9 months ago
Exactly. So without any data it has been postulated that qubits are possible/might exist in microtubules. What is the merit of that hypothesis in the absence of any data?
Falsifiability is a very weak requirement. Many specific gods are falsifiable. They just haven't been falsified yet.
I can invent an infinity of falsifiable theories that live in a space without evidence. By doing that I waste people's time. Provide evidence with your hypothesis, and we talk science.
socrates856 9 months ago
Lots to respond to. Will come later. To start, you keep forgetting data. The greeks and chinese did not speculate that the earth was round. They knew. And the reason why they new is because the data fit the theory. So rather than the theory being falsified they got repeatedly confirmed in any case in which it applied.
That is science. Predictive theories that are accuate in that observation confirms them. (cont)
socrates856 9 months ago
@socrates856 : jfor example they are debating now if the brain is too warm for the type of phenomenon that Hameroff is theorizing. They are debating how much information is storable in tubulin based microtubes.
They have discovered that: microtubes are used for sensation and locomotion and not just rigid structure. that microtubes can be used to compute classically, at least. in their role in sensing (i.e. light) and locomotion involve computation to convert chemical signals to action.
pyrrho314 9 months ago
@pyrrho314 Again, I can concede all that and it still nowhere explains why that has anything to do at all with consciousness.
socrates856 9 months ago
@socrates856 People have known the Earth was round for millennia. Anyone that sailed or lived in a seaport knew it just by mere observation.
HeavyTrafficAhead 9 months ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead : not all people.
pyrrho314 9 months ago
@pyrrho314 No I'm pretty sure that some Bohemian peasant in the 14th century didn't know and probably thought the world was flat. also thought that goblins lived in the nearby forest and couldn't read either. But the knowledge of the Earth being round was a lot more prevalent than is generally understood today.
HeavyTrafficAhead 9 months ago