5 ms·

Is there a good scientific explanation why quantum phenomena are required to explain consciousness? Or in other words, is there a reason to rule out consciousne

Is there a good scientific explanation why quantum phenomena are required to explain consciousness? Or in other words, is there a reason to rule out consciousness as a natural emergent property of the macro-level structure and composition of our brains, without delving into the quantum realm (beyond what is necessary to explain the operation of the cells themselves)?

bencollier49 5y ago
We're just stuck at a dead end as regards the hard problem of consciousness. Quantum theory appeared to have potential because of the apparent links between consciousness / observation and wave-function collapse. This may not help. The current zeitgeist appears to be denial that consciousness exists at all. I don't think this helps either. If I had to take a punt I'd say that we can't find a solution because it's the substrate of everything, so by definition can't be measured by us.
- kbd 5y ago
  > The current zeitgeist appears to be denial that consciousness exists at all. That’s odd, arguably it’s the one thing we know exists. > because it’s the substrate of everything Recommend checking out Bernardo Kastrup (two PhDs, many books and videos on YouTube) who argues that mind is fundamental.
  - bencollier49 5y ago
    > That’s odd, arguably it’s the one thing we know exists. They do it by changing the meaning of the word "consciousness" so that they can then show that this new thing they've defined doesn't exist. It's a remarkable strawman.
    - loopz 5y ago
      If consciousness doesn't exist, who is it that can disprove it, and why should anyone listen? It's a bit like proving the universe is a simulation or not. These can never be proved or disproved. It's quite silly to deny consciousness though! It's similar to deny one's existence. So philosophy and psychology shines some light on these questions.
  - ramraj07 5y ago
    I don’t think “two PhDs” is the flex you think it is to most people with PhDs.
    - kbd 5y ago
      “I have a PhD and I am unimpressive”
      - bigbillheck 5y ago
        Personally, I was smart enough to stop after one phd.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    Checked him out, he doesn't have his own RationalWiki entry, just a footnote under Deepak Chopra https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra lesser kook.
- taberiand 5y ago
  Are there good articles that explain why it seems we're at a dead end in explaining consciousness without needing to go subatomic? Because I've never read anything convincing that concludes consciousness, when described as an emergent property of the macro-level operation of the cells and chemicals of our brains, is proven to be impossible.
- ramraj07 5y ago
  Other than popular science writers or physicists thinking they understand everything because they understand QCD, who said consciousness is stuck at a dead end for a lack of theories? The current standard hypothesis is that our synapse based computational network is more than sufficient to explain consciousness, we just don’t have the tools to prove or disprove the same. Connectomics research is still at its infancy unfortunately. Trying to invoke QC where we haven’t even gotten the bandwidth to prove or disprove a far simpler theory seems like a bad idea.
  - philipswood 5y ago
    Remember that quantum theorists have a strange dog in the race due to the whole wave-function-collapse by an observer thing. This gives them an unusual take on observers and consciousness. While everyone else tend to be happy with "consciousness is a physical computation", they tend to need/want something more. As far as I can make out David Deutsch started Quantum Computation to be able to have a quantum observer to probe the nature of quantum reality.
    - RobertoG 5y ago
      >>"As far as I can make out David Deutsch started Quantum Computation to be able to have a quantum observer to probe the nature of quantum reality." That's very surprising to me, because Deutsch is heavily in the Everett interpretation branch of possible quantum interpretations (pun intended). So, he doesn't need any wave-function-collapse magic to explain quantum mechanics. >>"Remember that quantum theorists have a strange dog in the race due to the whole wave-function-collapse by an observer thing." That's very insightful.
      - philipswood 5y ago
        >> That's very surprising to me, because Deutsch is heavily in the Everett interpretation branch of possible quantum interpretations (pun intended). He considers a working QC as basically an experimental confirmation of the many-worlds interpretation. Something like: "So tell me, these amazing parallel computations - where exactly do you say that they are being computed again if not in the parallel worlds?" There is a nice interview with him in Wired that touches this briefly: https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computing/ https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computin... Check his answer to: "So what prompted you to start thinking about quantum computing?" My take is that for him the QC started as a thought experiment to get a quantum observer to sidestep the whole wavefunction collapse by a classical observer problem. >> That's very insightful. Thanks.
scotty79 5y ago
Nobody was able to rule out conciousness as purely emergent from plain observable behavior of neurons without any need for quantum or pixie dust or the essence of life.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  That's like arguing that no one has been able to prove that you can't make a universe out of extremely large volumes of soup. The phrase that applies here is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you're going to claim that consciousness is fully explainable as plain wet chemistry, you're going to have to provide more evidence than a sentence that starts with "Well, obviously..."
  - summm 5y ago
    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Well, the claim that consciousness cannot be an emergent phenomenon strikes me as a much more extraordinary claim, and thus the burden of evidence is clearly on those. I suspect this warped perception is to religious and esoteric upbringing.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    Well, everything we ever explained in biology and related fields turned out to be fully explained by plain wet chemistry, so claim that conciousness is not is quite extraordinary. Conciousness is a function of the brain like digestion is a function of the stomach. Why not explain digestion with spooky quantum mechanics?
techbio 5y ago
> Is there a good scientific explanation why quantum phenomena are required to explain consciousness? I think it is simpler than all that: quantum phenomena belong to our description of reality, as also does consciousness. Assuming both are valid and explanatory, it should not be a surprise to see overlap. However, if one believes that one or both of these is false, the question is not to explain one using what we know of the other, but to disprove it using what we believe we know to be true. Is consciousness required to explain quantum phenomena, or simply our only means?

bencollier49 5y ago

We're just stuck at a dead end as regards the hard problem of consciousness. Quantum theory appeared to have potential because of the apparent links between consciousness / observation and wave-function collapse. This may not help. The current zeitgeist appears to be denial that consciousness exists at all. I don't think this helps either. If I had to take a punt I'd say that we can't find a solution because it's the substrate of everything, so by definition can't be measured by us.

kbd 5y ago
> The current zeitgeist appears to be denial that consciousness exists at all. That’s odd, arguably it’s the one thing we know exists. > because it’s the substrate of everything Recommend checking out Bernardo Kastrup (two PhDs, many books and videos on YouTube) who argues that mind is fundamental.
- bencollier49 5y ago
  > That’s odd, arguably it’s the one thing we know exists. They do it by changing the meaning of the word "consciousness" so that they can then show that this new thing they've defined doesn't exist. It's a remarkable strawman.
  - loopz 5y ago
    If consciousness doesn't exist, who is it that can disprove it, and why should anyone listen? It's a bit like proving the universe is a simulation or not. These can never be proved or disproved. It's quite silly to deny consciousness though! It's similar to deny one's existence. So philosophy and psychology shines some light on these questions.
- ramraj07 5y ago
  I don’t think “two PhDs” is the flex you think it is to most people with PhDs.
  - kbd 5y ago
    “I have a PhD and I am unimpressive”
    - bigbillheck 5y ago
      Personally, I was smart enough to stop after one phd.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  Checked him out, he doesn't have his own RationalWiki entry, just a footnote under Deepak Chopra https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra lesser kook.
taberiand 5y ago
Are there good articles that explain why it seems we're at a dead end in explaining consciousness without needing to go subatomic? Because I've never read anything convincing that concludes consciousness, when described as an emergent property of the macro-level operation of the cells and chemicals of our brains, is proven to be impossible.
ramraj07 5y ago
Other than popular science writers or physicists thinking they understand everything because they understand QCD, who said consciousness is stuck at a dead end for a lack of theories? The current standard hypothesis is that our synapse based computational network is more than sufficient to explain consciousness, we just don’t have the tools to prove or disprove the same. Connectomics research is still at its infancy unfortunately. Trying to invoke QC where we haven’t even gotten the bandwidth to prove or disprove a far simpler theory seems like a bad idea.
- philipswood 5y ago
  Remember that quantum theorists have a strange dog in the race due to the whole wave-function-collapse by an observer thing. This gives them an unusual take on observers and consciousness. While everyone else tend to be happy with "consciousness is a physical computation", they tend to need/want something more. As far as I can make out David Deutsch started Quantum Computation to be able to have a quantum observer to probe the nature of quantum reality.
  - RobertoG 5y ago
    >>"As far as I can make out David Deutsch started Quantum Computation to be able to have a quantum observer to probe the nature of quantum reality." That's very surprising to me, because Deutsch is heavily in the Everett interpretation branch of possible quantum interpretations (pun intended). So, he doesn't need any wave-function-collapse magic to explain quantum mechanics. >>"Remember that quantum theorists have a strange dog in the race due to the whole wave-function-collapse by an observer thing." That's very insightful.
    - philipswood 5y ago
      >> That's very surprising to me, because Deutsch is heavily in the Everett interpretation branch of possible quantum interpretations (pun intended). He considers a working QC as basically an experimental confirmation of the many-worlds interpretation. Something like: "So tell me, these amazing parallel computations - where exactly do you say that they are being computed again if not in the parallel worlds?" There is a nice interview with him in Wired that touches this briefly: https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computing/ https://www.wired.com/2007/02/the-father-of-quantum-computin... Check his answer to: "So what prompted you to start thinking about quantum computing?" My take is that for him the QC started as a thought experiment to get a quantum observer to sidestep the whole wavefunction collapse by a classical observer problem. >> That's very insightful. Thanks.

scotty79 5y ago

Nobody was able to rule out conciousness as purely emergent from plain observable behavior of neurons without any need for quantum or pixie dust or the essence of life.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
That's like arguing that no one has been able to prove that you can't make a universe out of extremely large volumes of soup. The phrase that applies here is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you're going to claim that consciousness is fully explainable as plain wet chemistry, you're going to have to provide more evidence than a sentence that starts with "Well, obviously..."
- summm 5y ago
  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Well, the claim that consciousness cannot be an emergent phenomenon strikes me as a much more extraordinary claim, and thus the burden of evidence is clearly on those. I suspect this warped perception is to religious and esoteric upbringing.
- scotty79 5y ago
  Well, everything we ever explained in biology and related fields turned out to be fully explained by plain wet chemistry, so claim that conciousness is not is quite extraordinary. Conciousness is a function of the brain like digestion is a function of the stomach. Why not explain digestion with spooky quantum mechanics?

techbio 5y ago

> Is there a good scientific explanation why quantum phenomena are required to explain consciousness? I think it is simpler than all that: quantum phenomena belong to our description of reality, as also does consciousness. Assuming both are valid and explanatory, it should not be a surprise to see overlap. However, if one believes that one or both of these is false, the question is not to explain one using what we know of the other, but to disprove it using what we believe we know to be true. Is consciousness required to explain quantum phenomena, or simply our only means?