Debunking Quantum Mind

An introduction to a series of videos I intend to make about quantum theories of mind. Hopefully throughout the series I will be critiquing:

Copenhagen Interpretation
Penrose & Hameroff
"Deterministic" Quantum Theories
Godel's theorem
Bell's Inequality
Non-locality
Quantum Entanglement
Retro-causality
Quantum Computing
"What The Bleep?" and other popular bastardizations that somehow justify "eastern mysticism" as support

Category:

Education

Tags:

• philosophy
• consciousness
• mind
• paradox
• fallacy
• functionalist

[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.

[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]

@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.

[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?

[enkiavatar]

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

[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 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]

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

[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