7 ms·

Theories about a link between the human mind and quantum physics

46 points by tdurden 10y ago

CuriouslyC 10y ago
Consciousness is certainly a quantum phenomenon, because at the end of the day our reality is quantum mechanics writ large. We don't really understand the transition from wave-like behavior to classical particle behavior, and our current theories are at least incomplete if not plain wrong. Given that, mechanistic speculation on the relationship between quantum physics and consciousness seems premature.
- frede 10y ago
  The physical theory is close to perfect, it's the interpretation that leaves room for questions.
  - CuriouslyC 10y ago
    The mathematical model is what is close to perfect. To me, theory implies a knowledge of actual process. I suppose that is a semantic point.
- Koshkin 10y ago
  That's pretty much like saying that everything is a quantum phenomenon. This is an example of a rather common mistake called 'reductionism'. But even reductionists are careful enough not to go too far - they do not call French Revolution a "quantum phenomenon", for example.
pif 10y ago
The only link I may imagine, classic mechanics is too deterministic to explain free will. Quantum mechanics, on the other side, has uncertainty as its fundamental principle.
- forthefuture 10y ago
  Is free will not understood? I haven't seen a human make a decision in 25 years that wasn't based exactly on their prime motivations.
  - dwringer 10y ago
    That's no more meaningful than saying "I haven't seen a particle behave in 25 years that wasn't based exactly on the laws of physics"
- sjy 10y ago
  There are many non-quantum phenomena which can't be accurately predicted, like turbulence and the stock market. I've never understood why the argument that 'it'a unpredictable, and therefore must be quantum' only seems to be applied to the brain.
rrggrr 10y ago
Better article from the Atlantic in 2016: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/quantum-brain/506768/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/quantum-...
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
There is no link. This is 1000 words of pseudoscientific nonsense.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  Agreed, a very poor article by BBC standards.
- z0noxz 10y ago
  Yep, I only read half and kinda got the feeling "X is green and Y is green therefore X = Y". A lot of "what if", "might it", "could it be" and so on...
- gadders 10y ago
  It's a weird concept, but Roger Penrose is a well-respected mathematician. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
  - sweeneyrod 10y ago
    Yes, the idea that quantum mechanics are involved in producing consciousness is not crazy (although I think Penrose would admit it is pretty speculative). His book The Emperor's New Mind discusses it. But the idea that consciousness produces quantum mechanical effects is (I'm fairly sure) nonsense.
    - dwringer 10y ago
      I have seen at least one set of studies where yogis in a deep state of meditation are asked to focus their consciousness on an active particle detection experiment, and the results seem to indicate some anomalies directly correlated with the yogi's direction of focus. The scientist's name escapes me, and was someone who had an active libel campaign running on his Wikipedia page.
    - CuriouslyC 10y ago
      I take it you don't believe in your own free will?
camtarn 10y ago
"Might it be that, just as quantum objects can apparently be in two places at once, so a quantum brain can hold onto two mutually-exclusive ideas at the same time?" Argh. Brain-hurting levels of bad science writing.
- dekhn 10y ago
  It's a paraphrase of Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind".
NikolaNovak 10y ago
To quote a stand-up comedian Pete Holmes on laymen explaining Magic acts: "I don't understand magnets... and I don't understand this... this is magnets!" [1] The writer watched some Big Bang theory for well-known physics concepts, mashed in some Deepak Chopra, and ensured all the relevant sentences are phrased as questions. Be warned it is a difficult read, not because of complicated concepts (there are many mentioned, but they are certainly not examined), but because of lack of any cohesive or binding logic between the smattering of phrases. [1] https://youtu.be/lK8G_VAuEnk?t=3m1s https://youtu.be/lK8G_VAuEnk?t=3m1s
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kordless 10y ago
  A thing may not "know" itself without recursion. Thus, some unknowns, contrary to popular logic, are still unknowns. We don't know how magnets work and it may be that our brains use how they do work in a specific way to do what they do. On the other hand, they may not. It's the concept of holding both of these "facts" as eventual truths (irrationally resolved in the future) in one's mind at the same time that leads to dissonance. That's a good excuse for the scientific process, if there ever was one.
- pharrington 10y ago
  The sad thing is that you're wrong about the writer; he holds a doctorate in physics. What this piece demonstrates is that formal education and even several levels of practical experience do not necessitate deep understanding. Humans are pretty good at copying.
justifier 10y ago
> even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion this claim has always frustrated me can someone who agrees with it defend it from first principles?
- XorNot 10y ago
  If a particle is strictly a point like entity then we expect it to be localised. In space. And that means an observation which probes somewhere it isn't shouldn't affect it. However, single photon double slit experiments don't show this - the particles act as though they are interfering with each other even though a photon detector will show photons arriving one at a time, at a rate which shows only one photon could have been traversing the apparatus at a time.
  - justifier 10y ago
    maybe I should have included the whole quote, but this is regarding the double slit experiment stead delayed choice quantum eraser experiments, where you measure over here but seem to affect over there > If we place a detector inside or just behind one slit, we can find out whether any given particle goes through it or not. In that case, however, the interference vanishes. Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome. when we place an observer at one of the slits we lose the previously ambiguous diffraction and instead get a clump pattern, but we are definitely probing where it is
mtuckah 10y ago
In the "delayed choice" experiment described, measuring the path of particles after they have traversed the slits forces their super position to collapse and yields no interference pattern on the detection screen. If that is the case, why doesn't the detection screen itself, which also measures the position of electrons, also force their super position to collapse? What is special about the detection screen as a measuring device?
- pif 10y ago
  > measuring the path of particles... > ... > the detection screen itself, which also measures the position of electrons, Alarm bells ringing around! Path and position are not the same thing, and that's quite an important distinction in quantum mechanics!
  - dave_sullivan 10y ago
    For those who don't know, it would be useful to explain "why" or include a reference.
- CuriouslyC 10y ago
  Think of measurement as the application of constraints. The slits are a form of weak measurement. This produces a loose constraint on the state of the electron - within the bounds of that constraint there are still many possible states in which it can exist. Depending on the type of measuring device, the constraint applied can be very tight, up to the limits of the uncertainty principle.
- dangirsh 10y ago
  The screen DOES cause the superposition to collapse. It just does so after the electron was able to interfere with itself. This causes the probability distribution for the collapse to be different than it is in the presence of a detector at the slits (no interference).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
neom 10y ago
I spend pretty much every weekend watching (super dyslexic) hours and hours of "stuff" about quantum, form quantum biology to physics to astro, here are some good ones around humans and the universe. Some may not seem totally relevant but give foundational knowledge, suggest watching in order: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXhGMVJuqA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXhGMVJuqA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ
- Rainymood 10y ago
  Good post, I made it a bit more legible Are Space and Time An Illusion? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko The Geometry of Causality | Space Time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo The Quantum Experiment that Broke Reality | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo Quantum Biology: An Introduction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk Quantum Biology: The Hidden Nature of Nature https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is Consciousness: Explored and Explained https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4 The Mind After Midnight: Where Do You Go When You Go to Sleep? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXhGMVJuqA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXhGMVJuqA Rebooting the Cosmos: Is the Universe the Ultimate Computer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ
  - lisivka 10y ago
    Double slit experiment is already explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 .
cyborgx7 10y ago
This bullshit again. Could we please just stop giving these cranks attention until they produce at least a somewhat plausible mechanism for how quantum mechanics and conciousness are related, and not just a bunch of unscentifeic speculative mumbojumbo that falls appart if you even take a cursory look at it?
- CuriouslyC 10y ago
  I'd argue that even bad articles can stimulate good discussion.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    You asked. Good discussion from bad article. I found surprising link between quantum objects and socks. Socks can be left, or right. They cannot be partially left, or partially right, but they can be left and right at same time! Trust me, I checked that. Moreover, when nobody is watching, socks are spreading in the room in wave-like pattern. It demonstrates wave-particle duality of socks. However, if somebody watching, socks are demonstrating particle only behavior. Moreover, they are demonstrating particle only behavior even if somebody will watch them in future! Socks can be entangled, so if one sock is the right sock, then other one is instantaneously collapses to the left sock via spooky action at distance. This feature of socks can be used for FTL communication. I have theory, it's called «string theory». In this theory, our Universe is made of little strings, which are creating space-time fabric, in which socks are living. In the process of entanglement, socks are somewhat connected by a string, which allows them to communicate via large distances. Can anybody suggest me how to create a powerful theory from that, e.g. x in power of 10 at least?
    - CuriouslyC 10y ago
      That is awesome, I am totally going to steal it :)
      - lisivka 10y ago
        You are welcome! I'm not a native speaker, so it's better to rewrite text into something readable.
senectus1 10y ago
damn that was painful reading... almost as silly as a chiropractor making adjustments on a turtle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=693MsUkQzsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=693MsUkQzsA
lngnmn 10y ago
Human brain is bound and conditioned by the shared physical environment. The process of evolution accumulates so-called hard-wired heuristics which reflect what usually happens in the environment. This is the machinery behind of some intuitions or Kant's "apriory knowledge". The "knowledge" is represented as a structure (circuitry), not information. What is obvious, anything which could not be captured by the senses and does not directly influence the chances of survival and reproduction cannot be represented into a brain structure and cannot be the source of related intuitions. Abstract concepts and generalized notions would necessarily reflect observable empirical phenomena, not imaginable. In other words, this is another hipster's nonsense.
- CuriouslyC 10y ago
  Kind of ironic to throw around Kant then call something hipster nonsense ;)
  - lngnmn 10y ago
    Why, Kant has been explicit that such kind of knowledge must be there prior to the sensory conditioning of the mind (through which each baby goes), hundreds of years before modern machine learning algorithms, so he is an extraordinary thinker indeed. He just attributed it to some metaphysical abstractions, perhaps due to being prejudiced by all the religious dogmatic nonsense, and the social consensus which refused to consider a man being mere a machine and everything in the universe as an unfolding of one single process.
tjansen 10y ago
As a software dev, without having any knowledge about quantum physics, reading about 'delayed-choice' particles, I'd say they are using some kind of lazy evaluation. Maybe the universe is actually a software simulation...
titzer 10y ago
I just don't get why smart people--even physicists!!--fall for this trap. AFAICT, Quantum mechanics adds no explanatory power to current theories of consciousness based on real, observable neurological phenomenon--like the quite obvious fact there is a huge neural network information processing system that is clearly doing the heavy lifting. No electrical activity, no consciousness. It's been shown over and over again. So what do the quantum superpositions add over mapping neural networks and simulating them? Does a quantum superposition of a single molecule somehow make the nodes of this neural network any more powerful or mysterious? Do they suddenly get a lot more storage capacity (the human brain is already estimated at 2.5pb just using neural connections)? QM just doesn't add _any_ new explanations or make any predictions for consciousness. Until it does, or we meet something we really cannot explain, it does not make sense to obsess over it.
- Koshkin 10y ago
  Quantum Mechanics as a physical theory that describes behavior of particles, structure of atoms, etc. does not have much to say about behavior of larger molecules, let alone cells such as neurons, or their interactions. But at the core of the modern QM lies a mathematical theory that, unfortunately, only rarely is seen as something that is independent from the QM's concrete physical aspects. That theory is a kind of probability theory that is different from the one that we all know and love (or hate). It is exactly that difference that makes QM unreachable for our intuition. But as a mathematical framework it can be expected to be useful in describing behavior of some other systems that have nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics and which could possibly include mechanisms of consciousness.
  - youdontknowtho 10y ago
    How would that probabilistic model be applied to consciousness? Genuinely curious here. As far as I can tell, the definition of consciousness that Chalmers and others use doesn't seem to have measurable aspects.
    - justifier 10y ago
mlechha 10y ago
Those who find connecting quantum mechanics and the brain repulsive should check out Quantum Cognition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum Cognition. For some reason the mathematics of QM is extremely good at explaining counter intuitive phenomena that classical probability theory cannot (necker cube is a good example, where the mental state can be said to be in a superposition of the two cube orientations). Mind you, this doesn't say anything about the actual mechanism. It could or couldn't be quantum but we'll never know if we just shrug the entire thing off as crackpottery.
ape4 10y ago
Computer hardware (like harddrives and memory) has to take quantum mechanical effects into account. Or they could not be so compact. Makes sense that human memory would evolve to it optimize these effects too. Nothing magical about it.
smashu 10y ago
Please just read this brilliant comic together with this article: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 The answer is there, in the last panel ;)
bykovich 10y ago
Serious question: why does everyone love the hard, mathematical reductionism that currently prevails so much? It's plagued by serious explanatory difficulties and terribly limited philosophical support, and seems to really contribute nothing of great value -- what the hell is the appeal?
- balfirevic 10y ago
  Not that you are correct about your view on limitations of reductionism - but even if you were the answer is: because the alternative is magic. Thanks but no thanks.
  - bykovich 10y ago
    That's an unconvincing response. The alternatives are not necessarily magic (it's terribly unclear what you mean by "magic" here, but I'm making some reasonable assumptions) -- but if they were, why would that be so terrible? You're certainly free to denounce whatever you want as "magic" -- but that doesn't tell me why it's bad.
asciimo 10y ago
Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology by Johnjoe McFadden (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RKO0KWM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RKO0KWM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...) concludes with speculation about the role of quantum mechanics in consciousness. He's clear that it's just theory, but the entire book paves a credible path toward considering the idea.
nonidit 10y ago
tl;dr; please?

46 points by tdurden 10y ago

Consciousness is certainly a quantum phenomenon, because at the end of the day our reality is quantum mechanics writ large. We don't really understand the transition from wave-like behavior to classical particle behavior, and our current theories are at least incomplete if not plain wrong. Given that, mechanistic speculation on the relationship between quantum physics and consciousness seems premature.

frede 10y ago
The physical theory is close to perfect, it's the interpretation that leaves room for questions.
- CuriouslyC 10y ago
  The mathematical model is what is close to perfect. To me, theory implies a knowledge of actual process. I suppose that is a semantic point.
Koshkin 10y ago
That's pretty much like saying that everything is a quantum phenomenon. This is an example of a rather common mistake called 'reductionism'. But even reductionists are careful enough not to go too far - they do not call French Revolution a "quantum phenomenon", for example.

pif 10y ago

The only link I may imagine, classic mechanics is too deterministic to explain free will. Quantum mechanics, on the other side, has uncertainty as its fundamental principle.

forthefuture 10y ago
Is free will not understood? I haven't seen a human make a decision in 25 years that wasn't based exactly on their prime motivations.
- dwringer 10y ago
  That's no more meaningful than saying "I haven't seen a particle behave in 25 years that wasn't based exactly on the laws of physics"
sjy 10y ago
There are many non-quantum phenomena which can't be accurately predicted, like turbulence and the stock market. I've never understood why the argument that 'it'a unpredictable, and therefore must be quantum' only seems to be applied to the brain.

rrggrr 10y ago

Better article from the Atlantic in 2016: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/quantum-brain/506768/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/quantum-...

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

There is no link. This is 1000 words of pseudoscientific nonsense.

beaconstudios 10y ago
Agreed, a very poor article by BBC standards.
z0noxz 10y ago
Yep, I only read half and kinda got the feeling "X is green and Y is green therefore X = Y". A lot of "what if", "might it", "could it be" and so on...
gadders 10y ago
It's a weird concept, but Roger Penrose is a well-respected mathematician. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
- sweeneyrod 10y ago
  Yes, the idea that quantum mechanics are involved in producing consciousness is not crazy (although I think Penrose would admit it is pretty speculative). His book The Emperor's New Mind discusses it. But the idea that consciousness produces quantum mechanical effects is (I'm fairly sure) nonsense.
  - dwringer 10y ago
    I have seen at least one set of studies where yogis in a deep state of meditation are asked to focus their consciousness on an active particle detection experiment, and the results seem to indicate some anomalies directly correlated with the yogi's direction of focus. The scientist's name escapes me, and was someone who had an active libel campaign running on his Wikipedia page.
  - CuriouslyC 10y ago
    I take it you don't believe in your own free will?

camtarn 10y ago

"Might it be that, just as quantum objects can apparently be in two places at once, so a quantum brain can hold onto two mutually-exclusive ideas at the same time?" Argh. Brain-hurting levels of bad science writing.

dekhn 10y ago
It's a paraphrase of Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind".

NikolaNovak 10y ago

To quote a stand-up comedian Pete Holmes on laymen explaining Magic acts: "I don't understand magnets... and I don't understand this... this is magnets!" [1] The writer watched some Big Bang theory for well-known physics concepts, mashed in some Deepak Chopra, and ensured all the relevant sentences are phrased as questions. Be warned it is a difficult read, not because of complicated concepts (there are many mentioned, but they are certainly not examined), but because of lack of any cohesive or binding logic between the smattering of phrases. [1] https://youtu.be/lK8G_VAuEnk?t=3m1s https://youtu.be/lK8G_VAuEnk?t=3m1s

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kordless 10y ago
A thing may not "know" itself without recursion. Thus, some unknowns, contrary to popular logic, are still unknowns. We don't know how magnets work and it may be that our brains use how they do work in a specific way to do what they do. On the other hand, they may not. It's the concept of holding both of these "facts" as eventual truths (irrationally resolved in the future) in one's mind at the same time that leads to dissonance. That's a good excuse for the scientific process, if there ever was one.
pharrington 10y ago
The sad thing is that you're wrong about the writer; he holds a doctorate in physics. What this piece demonstrates is that formal education and even several levels of practical experience do not necessitate deep understanding. Humans are pretty good at copying.

justifier 10y ago

> even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion this claim has always frustrated me can someone who agrees with it defend it from first principles?

XorNot 10y ago
If a particle is strictly a point like entity then we expect it to be localised. In space. And that means an observation which probes somewhere it isn't shouldn't affect it. However, single photon double slit experiments don't show this - the particles act as though they are interfering with each other even though a photon detector will show photons arriving one at a time, at a rate which shows only one photon could have been traversing the apparatus at a time.
- justifier 10y ago
  maybe I should have included the whole quote, but this is regarding the double slit experiment stead delayed choice quantum eraser experiments, where you measure over here but seem to affect over there > If we place a detector inside or just behind one slit, we can find out whether any given particle goes through it or not. In that case, however, the interference vanishes. Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome. when we place an observer at one of the slits we lose the previously ambiguous diffraction and instead get a clump pattern, but we are definitely probing where it is

mtuckah 10y ago

In the "delayed choice" experiment described, measuring the path of particles after they have traversed the slits forces their super position to collapse and yields no interference pattern on the detection screen. If that is the case, why doesn't the detection screen itself, which also measures the position of electrons, also force their super position to collapse? What is special about the detection screen as a measuring device?

pif 10y ago
> measuring the path of particles... > ... > the detection screen itself, which also measures the position of electrons, Alarm bells ringing around! Path and position are not the same thing, and that's quite an important distinction in quantum mechanics!
- dave_sullivan 10y ago
  For those who don't know, it would be useful to explain "why" or include a reference.
CuriouslyC 10y ago
Think of measurement as the application of constraints. The slits are a form of weak measurement. This produces a loose constraint on the state of the electron - within the bounds of that constraint there are still many possible states in which it can exist. Depending on the type of measuring device, the constraint applied can be very tight, up to the limits of the uncertainty principle.
dangirsh 10y ago
The screen DOES cause the superposition to collapse. It just does so after the electron was able to interfere with itself. This causes the probability distribution for the collapse to be different than it is in the presence of a detector at the slits (no interference).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

neom 10y ago

I spend pretty much every weekend watching (super dyslexic) hours and hours of "stuff" about quantum, form quantum biology to physics to astro, here are some good ones around humans and the universe. Some may not seem totally relevant but give foundational knowledge, suggest watching in order: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXhGMVJuqA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXhGMVJuqA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ

Rainymood 10y ago
Good post, I made it a bit more legible Are Space and Time An Illusion? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko The Geometry of Causality | Space Time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo The Quantum Experiment that Broke Reality | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo Quantum Biology: An Introduction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk Quantum Biology: The Hidden Nature of Nature https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is Consciousness: Explored and Explained https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4 The Mind After Midnight: Where Do You Go When You Go to Sleep? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXhGMVJuqA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXhGMVJuqA Rebooting the Cosmos: Is the Universe the Ultimate Computer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ
- lisivka 10y ago
  Double slit experiment is already explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 .

cyborgx7 10y ago

This bullshit again. Could we please just stop giving these cranks attention until they produce at least a somewhat plausible mechanism for how quantum mechanics and conciousness are related, and not just a bunch of unscentifeic speculative mumbojumbo that falls appart if you even take a cursory look at it?

CuriouslyC 10y ago
I'd argue that even bad articles can stimulate good discussion.
- lisivka 10y ago
  You asked. Good discussion from bad article. I found surprising link between quantum objects and socks. Socks can be left, or right. They cannot be partially left, or partially right, but they can be left and right at same time! Trust me, I checked that. Moreover, when nobody is watching, socks are spreading in the room in wave-like pattern. It demonstrates wave-particle duality of socks. However, if somebody watching, socks are demonstrating particle only behavior. Moreover, they are demonstrating particle only behavior even if somebody will watch them in future! Socks can be entangled, so if one sock is the right sock, then other one is instantaneously collapses to the left sock via spooky action at distance. This feature of socks can be used for FTL communication. I have theory, it's called «string theory». In this theory, our Universe is made of little strings, which are creating space-time fabric, in which socks are living. In the process of entanglement, socks are somewhat connected by a string, which allows them to communicate via large distances. Can anybody suggest me how to create a powerful theory from that, e.g. x in power of 10 at least?
  - CuriouslyC 10y ago
    That is awesome, I am totally going to steal it :)
    - lisivka 10y ago
      You are welcome! I'm not a native speaker, so it's better to rewrite text into something readable.

senectus1 10y ago

damn that was painful reading... almost as silly as a chiropractor making adjustments on a turtle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=693MsUkQzsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=693MsUkQzsA

lngnmn 10y ago

Human brain is bound and conditioned by the shared physical environment. The process of evolution accumulates so-called hard-wired heuristics which reflect what usually happens in the environment. This is the machinery behind of some intuitions or Kant's "apriory knowledge". The "knowledge" is represented as a structure (circuitry), not information. What is obvious, anything which could not be captured by the senses and does not directly influence the chances of survival and reproduction cannot be represented into a brain structure and cannot be the source of related intuitions. Abstract concepts and generalized notions would necessarily reflect observable empirical phenomena, not imaginable. In other words, this is another hipster's nonsense.

CuriouslyC 10y ago
Kind of ironic to throw around Kant then call something hipster nonsense ;)
- lngnmn 10y ago
  Why, Kant has been explicit that such kind of knowledge must be there prior to the sensory conditioning of the mind (through which each baby goes), hundreds of years before modern machine learning algorithms, so he is an extraordinary thinker indeed. He just attributed it to some metaphysical abstractions, perhaps due to being prejudiced by all the religious dogmatic nonsense, and the social consensus which refused to consider a man being mere a machine and everything in the universe as an unfolding of one single process.

tjansen 10y ago

As a software dev, without having any knowledge about quantum physics, reading about 'delayed-choice' particles, I'd say they are using some kind of lazy evaluation. Maybe the universe is actually a software simulation...

titzer 10y ago

I just don't get why smart people--even physicists!!--fall for this trap. AFAICT, Quantum mechanics adds no explanatory power to current theories of consciousness based on real, observable neurological phenomenon--like the quite obvious fact there is a huge neural network information processing system that is clearly doing the heavy lifting. No electrical activity, no consciousness. It's been shown over and over again. So what do the quantum superpositions add over mapping neural networks and simulating them? Does a quantum superposition of a single molecule somehow make the nodes of this neural network any more powerful or mysterious? Do they suddenly get a lot more storage capacity (the human brain is already estimated at 2.5pb just using neural connections)? QM just doesn't add _any_ new explanations or make any predictions for consciousness. Until it does, or we meet something we really cannot explain, it does not make sense to obsess over it.

Koshkin 10y ago
Quantum Mechanics as a physical theory that describes behavior of particles, structure of atoms, etc. does not have much to say about behavior of larger molecules, let alone cells such as neurons, or their interactions. But at the core of the modern QM lies a mathematical theory that, unfortunately, only rarely is seen as something that is independent from the QM's concrete physical aspects. That theory is a kind of probability theory that is different from the one that we all know and love (or hate). It is exactly that difference that makes QM unreachable for our intuition. But as a mathematical framework it can be expected to be useful in describing behavior of some other systems that have nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics and which could possibly include mechanisms of consciousness.
- youdontknowtho 10y ago
  How would that probabilistic model be applied to consciousness? Genuinely curious here. As far as I can tell, the definition of consciousness that Chalmers and others use doesn't seem to have measurable aspects.
  - justifier 10y ago

mlechha 10y ago

Those who find connecting quantum mechanics and the brain repulsive should check out Quantum Cognition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum Cognition. For some reason the mathematics of QM is extremely good at explaining counter intuitive phenomena that classical probability theory cannot (necker cube is a good example, where the mental state can be said to be in a superposition of the two cube orientations). Mind you, this doesn't say anything about the actual mechanism. It could or couldn't be quantum but we'll never know if we just shrug the entire thing off as crackpottery.

ape4 10y ago

Computer hardware (like harddrives and memory) has to take quantum mechanical effects into account. Or they could not be so compact. Makes sense that human memory would evolve to it optimize these effects too. Nothing magical about it.

smashu 10y ago

Please just read this brilliant comic together with this article: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 The answer is there, in the last panel ;)

bykovich 10y ago

Serious question: why does everyone love the hard, mathematical reductionism that currently prevails so much? It's plagued by serious explanatory difficulties and terribly limited philosophical support, and seems to really contribute nothing of great value -- what the hell is the appeal?

balfirevic 10y ago
Not that you are correct about your view on limitations of reductionism - but even if you were the answer is: because the alternative is magic. Thanks but no thanks.
- bykovich 10y ago
  That's an unconvincing response. The alternatives are not necessarily magic (it's terribly unclear what you mean by "magic" here, but I'm making some reasonable assumptions) -- but if they were, why would that be so terrible? You're certainly free to denounce whatever you want as "magic" -- but that doesn't tell me why it's bad.

asciimo 10y ago

Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology by Johnjoe McFadden (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RKO0KWM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RKO0KWM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...) concludes with speculation about the role of quantum mechanics in consciousness. He's clear that it's just theory, but the entire book paves a credible path toward considering the idea.

nonidit 10y ago

tl;dr; please?