5 ms·

I'm very interested in any theoretical connections between interactions of conscious beings and quantum physics. I've read a number of physicists discounting an

by aneth4 13y ago

I'm very interested in any theoretical connections between interactions of conscious beings and quantum physics. I've read a number of physicists discounting any such possibility, but it's clear to me nobody understands these things well enough to know. Personally I think consciousness, perception, and free will are a great unknown, and likely involve the makeup of the cosmos including quantum interactions. If anyone knows of any science in this area I would appreciate references.

JamesArgo 13y ago
Ignorance isn't a concatenation operator.
- aneth4 13y ago
  Presumably you mean not disproving quantum involvement in consciousness doesn't imply it's existence. That's far more than this snipey comment deserves in the way of response, but feel free to form a thought here.
  - JamesArgo 13y ago
    I was commenting (tersely but not with intentional snip) on this: >Personally I think consciousness, perception, and free will are a great unknown, and likely involve the makeup of the cosmos including quantum interactions. You're taking a whole slew of things we're ignorant about, waving your hands and saying,"They must be related to some great truth hidden in particle physics!" I find this kind of thinking bizarre.
    - paulovsk 13y ago
      I feel exactly the same way. It makes things seem obscure and that's where guys like Deepak Chopra come in.
    - aneth4 13y ago
      So, the fact that I would speculate that the fundamental make-up of the cosmos might (not "must" as you mis-quote) be related to how consciousness is an emergent property of the cosmos is bizarre? I think your discounting of such questioning and speculation is bizarre. Consciousness is either entirely made up of "particle physics" or it is made from something even further into the field of speculation. Why would speculating about a connection between particle physics and consciousness be remotely "bizarre"? It seems quite likely to me that quantum mechanics is at least in some way involved in consciousness, given that that quantum physics governs the behavior of the matter of our brains.
lkozma 13y ago
Roger Penrose has famously speculated on the connection between quantum physics and consciousness in his book "The emperor's new mind" and follow-ups, but as far as I know, the idea is not very highly regarded in the scientific community and the book is not very convincing either (IMHO).
- warfangle 13y ago
  The connection is also made by those who ascribe to Ramtha's "school of enlightenment," a pithy charade and oft-described cult.
- igravious 13y ago
  I could not in good conscience recommend The Emperor's New Mind to anyone. It is front-loaded with science and math and topped off with rubbish conjectures masquerading as truth. Yay for Penrose tiles and all that but steer clear of this book. There is no science of consciousness because there is no science of subjectivity because science deals with objective reality, the world of objects. So we need to extend the scientific method to deal with subjects and I'm not aware of much progress in that area bar a few unknown figures in the world of cybernetic research.
  - AlexFinks 13y ago
    There is indeed a science of consciousness, such as with anesthesiology or pharmacology. These sciences are concerned with the space of awareness of a subject. I'd also say that there is an objectivity to subjective perception; for example, if two travelers in space find that the distance between themselves is shrinking, while either party may justly argue that it is the opposing side that is moving, and that we are standing still (or some other possible combination), we can still both make objective agreements on what the other party may subjectively see. We can objectively know that the other party is equally clueless as us in determining our velocities. I personally think there is an enormous benefit to science to understanding subjective perception. I imagine the problem of distributed AI's having different perceptions, and having to make sense of their different perceptions in order to solve problems.
seiji 13y ago
Personally I think consciousness, perception, and free will are a great unknown, and likely involve the makeup of the cosmos including quantum interactions. They are not great unknowns. They are kinda dull knowns and they get more known-er by the year. Nothing in the brain (or the "cosmos") requires quantum juju for our conscious experience. There's lots written about perception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_detection_(nervous_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_detection_(nervous_syst... (and all of Hinton's biologically-inspired artificial neural network work) And consciousness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Metzinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Metzinger And free will: http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/programming_the_moist_robot/ http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/programming_the_moist_robot/ and http://dilbert.com/fast/2012-03-18/ http://dilbert.com/fast/2012-03-18/ All you are is a three pound analog ASIC in your skull. If it gets squished, infiltrated, inflamed, or explodes, you cease to exist completely (save, any memories other people have of your behaviors or any output you left behind recording your brain state under various priors).
- d23 13y ago
  > They are not great unknowns. They are kinda dull knowns and they get more known-er by the year. Nothing in the brain (or the "cosmos") requires quantum juju for our conscious experience. Oh great one, please tell me your all encompassing theory of consciousness and how existence came to be! Then we can all gather around the Altar of the Great Seiji and marvel at his linking to a couple of wikipedia articles! What a wondrous time to be alive and in your presence!
- summerdown2 13y ago
  CS Lewis explored the idea of a shed with a window onto the sun. Looked at from the doorway, you see a shaft of light with dancing dust motes. But if you step inside and become bathed in sunlight you get quite another experience. Likewise, looking at a brain from the outside, it's a squishy biological construct with some electrical stuff going on. Viewed from the inside, though: what a difference!
- aneth4 13y ago
  Your implication is that a computer of sufficient power and proper programming can develop an illusion of self and qualia. Perhaps that is true, but it is far from "dull" or "known."
sublimeloge 13y ago
I don't know of any science in this area yet, because everything I'm aware of is far too speculative to be called "science". That said there is some science-aware philosophy in this area, more notably "The Emperor's New Mind" and "Shadows of the Mind" by Roger Penrose (also mentioned by lkozma below). Scott Aaronson also published a essay in this area recently which tackles the issue of relationships free will and quantum physics from a pretty neat angle. It's the first attempt I've seen in this area that I sort of like (not to say I agree or disagree with it, I just like it). It's available for free online: http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf
ajkjk 13y ago
Sure, we haven't figured out the brain so we don't know for sure -- but I've never seen anything that suggests there's more to it than complicated chemistry.
floobynewb 13y ago
I think many people have a hunch in this direction. But that may just be because we desire ourselves to be in some way special. I would be wary of anyone discounting it out of hand. What you are really asking is how does the brain work? If you really want to think sensibly about this you are going to need to: 1) be prepared to spend decades thinking about it. 2) become really, really good at maths. 3) get really, really good at physics. 4) get really, really good at computational neuroscience and if you actually want an answer, you have two options: 1) wait for a genius to work it out 2) become the genius who works it out Hacker news is not going to be able to help you on this one!
- fdovila 13y ago
  By the mean time, the rest of us, we can dig into Stuart A. Kauffman and Stuart Hameroff's ideas on Penrose's counciousness. http://www.edge.org/memberbio/stuart_a_kauffman http://www.edge.org/memberbio/stuart_a_kauffman http://www.edge.org/conversation/five-problems-in-the-philosophy-of-mind http://www.edge.org/conversation/five-problems-in-the-philos... An updated critic on this ideas by Göran Wendin: http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/qcontrol13/wendin/pdf/Wendin_QControl13_KITP.pdf http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/qcontrol13/wendin/pdf/Wen...
bobwaycott 13y ago
I'd say consciousness and perception form the illusion of free will, but it (free will) is not a discoverable or knowable thing like the others. I, too, am fascinated with what we may come to discover about ourselves, our minds, and our connections (both local and non-local) as we increase our quantum understanding. Robert A. Burton's On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not and A Skeptic's Guide to the Mind: What Neuroscience Can and Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves may interest you. Not exactly in the realm of quantum theory, but if you're interested in understanding consciousness and perception, you really can't go wrong with reading up on neuroscience and related philosophy fields (mind, consciousness, being, etc.). Beyond that, I think you're going to want to look for works on quantum physics with relation to neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy. Here's an article from 2005: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1458/1309.full#sec-13 http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1458/1309... Roger Penrose has a few works on the subject of quantum theory and human consciousness (as mentioned by a sibling comment), and Max Tegmark argues against him, suggesting neurons are too warm to perform quantum computations. However, Henry Stapp (one of the authors of the linked article above), while admitting that Tegmark's work poses a significant problem for Penrose's theories, says his own theories are unaffected. Despite that, there are perception issues (e.g., precognition) which offer curiosities regarding backward causality in time, on which discussion occurs to ponder potential quantum effects. Here, you'd want to look into quantum mechanics/theory and human perception.
- Alex3917 13y ago
  > (free will) is not a discoverable or knowable thing like the others. Sure it is. You just need to stick with meditation until you reach the jhana of the arising and passing away: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/The%20Arising%20and%20Passing%20Away?p_r_p_185834411_title=The%20Arising%20and%20Passing%20Away http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dharma-wiki/-/wiki... That's the first time you get a glimpse of the fact that free will is an illusion, although you don't fully experience it until you hit enlightenment.
Tycho 13y ago
google 'CTMU'

by aneth4 13y ago

JamesArgo 13y ago

Ignorance isn't a concatenation operator.

aneth4 13y ago
Presumably you mean not disproving quantum involvement in consciousness doesn't imply it's existence. That's far more than this snipey comment deserves in the way of response, but feel free to form a thought here.
- JamesArgo 13y ago
  I was commenting (tersely but not with intentional snip) on this: >Personally I think consciousness, perception, and free will are a great unknown, and likely involve the makeup of the cosmos including quantum interactions. You're taking a whole slew of things we're ignorant about, waving your hands and saying,"They must be related to some great truth hidden in particle physics!" I find this kind of thinking bizarre.
  - paulovsk 13y ago
    I feel exactly the same way. It makes things seem obscure and that's where guys like Deepak Chopra come in.
  - aneth4 13y ago
    So, the fact that I would speculate that the fundamental make-up of the cosmos might (not "must" as you mis-quote) be related to how consciousness is an emergent property of the cosmos is bizarre? I think your discounting of such questioning and speculation is bizarre. Consciousness is either entirely made up of "particle physics" or it is made from something even further into the field of speculation. Why would speculating about a connection between particle physics and consciousness be remotely "bizarre"? It seems quite likely to me that quantum mechanics is at least in some way involved in consciousness, given that that quantum physics governs the behavior of the matter of our brains.

lkozma 13y ago

Roger Penrose has famously speculated on the connection between quantum physics and consciousness in his book "The emperor's new mind" and follow-ups, but as far as I know, the idea is not very highly regarded in the scientific community and the book is not very convincing either (IMHO).

warfangle 13y ago
The connection is also made by those who ascribe to Ramtha's "school of enlightenment," a pithy charade and oft-described cult.
igravious 13y ago
I could not in good conscience recommend The Emperor's New Mind to anyone. It is front-loaded with science and math and topped off with rubbish conjectures masquerading as truth. Yay for Penrose tiles and all that but steer clear of this book. There is no science of consciousness because there is no science of subjectivity because science deals with objective reality, the world of objects. So we need to extend the scientific method to deal with subjects and I'm not aware of much progress in that area bar a few unknown figures in the world of cybernetic research.
- AlexFinks 13y ago
  There is indeed a science of consciousness, such as with anesthesiology or pharmacology. These sciences are concerned with the space of awareness of a subject. I'd also say that there is an objectivity to subjective perception; for example, if two travelers in space find that the distance between themselves is shrinking, while either party may justly argue that it is the opposing side that is moving, and that we are standing still (or some other possible combination), we can still both make objective agreements on what the other party may subjectively see. We can objectively know that the other party is equally clueless as us in determining our velocities. I personally think there is an enormous benefit to science to understanding subjective perception. I imagine the problem of distributed AI's having different perceptions, and having to make sense of their different perceptions in order to solve problems.

seiji 13y ago

Personally I think consciousness, perception, and free will are a great unknown, and likely involve the makeup of the cosmos including quantum interactions. They are not great unknowns. They are kinda dull knowns and they get more known-er by the year. Nothing in the brain (or the "cosmos") requires quantum juju for our conscious experience. There's lots written about perception: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_detection_(nervous_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_detection_(nervous_syst... (and all of Hinton's biologically-inspired artificial neural network work) And consciousness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Metzinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Metzinger And free will: http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/programming_the_moist_robot/ http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/programming_the_moist_robot/ and http://dilbert.com/fast/2012-03-18/ http://dilbert.com/fast/2012-03-18/ All you are is a three pound analog ASIC in your skull. If it gets squished, infiltrated, inflamed, or explodes, you cease to exist completely (save, any memories other people have of your behaviors or any output you left behind recording your brain state under various priors).

d23 13y ago
> They are not great unknowns. They are kinda dull knowns and they get more known-er by the year. Nothing in the brain (or the "cosmos") requires quantum juju for our conscious experience. Oh great one, please tell me your all encompassing theory of consciousness and how existence came to be! Then we can all gather around the Altar of the Great Seiji and marvel at his linking to a couple of wikipedia articles! What a wondrous time to be alive and in your presence!
summerdown2 13y ago
CS Lewis explored the idea of a shed with a window onto the sun. Looked at from the doorway, you see a shaft of light with dancing dust motes. But if you step inside and become bathed in sunlight you get quite another experience. Likewise, looking at a brain from the outside, it's a squishy biological construct with some electrical stuff going on. Viewed from the inside, though: what a difference!
aneth4 13y ago
Your implication is that a computer of sufficient power and proper programming can develop an illusion of self and qualia. Perhaps that is true, but it is far from "dull" or "known."

sublimeloge 13y ago

I don't know of any science in this area yet, because everything I'm aware of is far too speculative to be called "science". That said there is some science-aware philosophy in this area, more notably "The Emperor's New Mind" and "Shadows of the Mind" by Roger Penrose (also mentioned by lkozma below). Scott Aaronson also published a essay in this area recently which tackles the issue of relationships free will and quantum physics from a pretty neat angle. It's the first attempt I've seen in this area that I sort of like (not to say I agree or disagree with it, I just like it). It's available for free online: http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf

ajkjk 13y ago

Sure, we haven't figured out the brain so we don't know for sure -- but I've never seen anything that suggests there's more to it than complicated chemistry.

floobynewb 13y ago

I think many people have a hunch in this direction. But that may just be because we desire ourselves to be in some way special. I would be wary of anyone discounting it out of hand. What you are really asking is how does the brain work? If you really want to think sensibly about this you are going to need to: 1) be prepared to spend decades thinking about it. 2) become really, really good at maths. 3) get really, really good at physics. 4) get really, really good at computational neuroscience and if you actually want an answer, you have two options: 1) wait for a genius to work it out 2) become the genius who works it out Hacker news is not going to be able to help you on this one!

fdovila 13y ago
By the mean time, the rest of us, we can dig into Stuart A. Kauffman and Stuart Hameroff's ideas on Penrose's counciousness. http://www.edge.org/memberbio/stuart_a_kauffman http://www.edge.org/memberbio/stuart_a_kauffman http://www.edge.org/conversation/five-problems-in-the-philosophy-of-mind http://www.edge.org/conversation/five-problems-in-the-philos... An updated critic on this ideas by Göran Wendin: http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/qcontrol13/wendin/pdf/Wendin_QControl13_KITP.pdf http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/qcontrol13/wendin/pdf/Wen...

bobwaycott 13y ago

I'd say consciousness and perception form the illusion of free will, but it (free will) is not a discoverable or knowable thing like the others. I, too, am fascinated with what we may come to discover about ourselves, our minds, and our connections (both local and non-local) as we increase our quantum understanding. Robert A. Burton's On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not and A Skeptic's Guide to the Mind: What Neuroscience Can and Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves may interest you. Not exactly in the realm of quantum theory, but if you're interested in understanding consciousness and perception, you really can't go wrong with reading up on neuroscience and related philosophy fields (mind, consciousness, being, etc.). Beyond that, I think you're going to want to look for works on quantum physics with relation to neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy. Here's an article from 2005: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1458/1309.full#sec-13 http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1458/1309... Roger Penrose has a few works on the subject of quantum theory and human consciousness (as mentioned by a sibling comment), and Max Tegmark argues against him, suggesting neurons are too warm to perform quantum computations. However, Henry Stapp (one of the authors of the linked article above), while admitting that Tegmark's work poses a significant problem for Penrose's theories, says his own theories are unaffected. Despite that, there are perception issues (e.g., precognition) which offer curiosities regarding backward causality in time, on which discussion occurs to ponder potential quantum effects. Here, you'd want to look into quantum mechanics/theory and human perception.

Alex3917 13y ago
> (free will) is not a discoverable or knowable thing like the others. Sure it is. You just need to stick with meditation until you reach the jhana of the arising and passing away: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/The%20Arising%20and%20Passing%20Away?p_r_p_185834411_title=The%20Arising%20and%20Passing%20Away http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dharma-wiki/-/wiki... That's the first time you get a glimpse of the fact that free will is an illusion, although you don't fully experience it until you hit enlightenment.

Tycho 13y ago

google 'CTMU'