Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Quantum can't model a mind using quantum

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Quantum can't model a mind using quantum

    A few weeks ago I introduced to this forum the idea that every formulation of quantum mechanics requires an observer and that requires that mentality or soul is more important than matter. For a refresher, here is what three physicists said about mind/soul being more important than matter:

    Originally posted by Steven Weinberg, Scientific American July 2018, p. 32
    "Fundamentally, I have an ideal of what a physical theory should be. It should be something that doesn't refer in any specific way to human beings. It should be something from which everything else--including anything you can say systematically about chemistry, or biology, or human affairs--can be derived. It shouldn't have human beings at the beginning in the laws of nature. And yet, I don't see any way of formulating quantum mechanics without interpretative postulate that refers to what happens when people choose to measure one thing or another."
    Originally posted by Lee Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos Oxford University press, 1997 p. 264
    "It thus seems to me that the many-worlds interpretation can be understood as an attempt to preserve, in quantum theory of the whole universe, the notion of single-observer objectivity. I know no other way to understand the desire to posit that the quantum state of the universe corresponds to reality, in spite of the fact that there can be no observer inside the universe (as we ordinarily mean it) who can observe it. This formulation preserves the idea that there is a single objective view of reality by the extreme means of making that the view of an observer who does not live in the world."
    Which means, if you hold to Many Worlds View of Quantum, you actually believe there is a supreme being. LMAO. Most people who hold Many World's view don't realize it requires a super being ala God! and finally:

    Originally posted by Stephen M. Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003), p. 27-28
    "But this was only one of the remarkable reversals produced by the quantum revolution. In the opinion of many physicists-including such great figures in twentieth-century physics as Eugene Wigner and Rudolf Peierls-the fundamental principles of quantum theory are inconsistent with the materialist view of the human mind. Quantum theory, in its traditional, or "standard," or "orthodox" formulation, treats "observers" as being on a different plane from the physical systems that they observe. A careful analysis of the logical structure of quantum theory suggests that for quantum theory to make sense it has to posit the existence of observers who lie, at least in part, outside of the description provided by physics. This claim is controversial. There have been various attempts made to avoid this conclusion, either by radical reinterpretations of quantum theory (such as the so-called "many-worlds interpretation") or by changing quantum theory in some way. But the argument against materialism based on quantum theory is a strong one, and has certainly not been refuted. The line" of argument is rather subtle. It is also not well- known, even among most practicing physicists. But, if it is correct, it would be the most important philosophical implication to come from any scientific discovery."
    The need for an observer who is apart from nature for the quantum collapse, is something that ensures that this world is not materialistic. It is scientific fact that the world is not merely matter, and that mind does not arise from matter. Can we go further than this? Yes, a couple of weeks ago, as I was getting ready for my move, Nature published an article with astounding implications. The article in Nature is entitled." Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself" by Daniela Frauchiger & Renato Renner. The abstract says:

    Originally posted by Frauchiger and Renner, "Quantum Theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself" Nature, Sept 18, 2018
    "Quantum theory provides an extremely accurate description of fundamental processes in physics. It thus seems likely that the theory is applicable beyond the, mostly microscopic, domain in which it has been tested experimentally. Here, we propose a Gedankenexperiment to investigate the question whether quantum theory can, in principle, have universal validity. The idea is that, if the answer was yes, it must be possible to employ quantum theory to model complex systems that include agents who are themselves using quantum theory. Analyzing the experiment under this presumption, we find that one agent, upon observing a particular measurement outcome, must conclude that another agent has predicted the opposite outcome with certainty. The agents’ conclusions, although all derived within quantum theory, are thus inconsistent. This indicates that quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems, at least not in a straightforward manner."
    This is probably the easiest way to get a grasp on what these authors have done:

    Originally posted by Davide Castelvecchi, " Reimagining of Schrödinger’s cat breaks quantum mechanics — and stumps physicists" Nature Sept 18, 2018
    In 1967, the Hungarian physicist Eugene Wigner proposed a version of the paradox in which he replaced the cat and the poison with a physicist friend who lived inside a box with a measuring device that could return one of two results, such as a coin showing heads or tails. Does the wavefunction collapse when Wigner’s friend becomes aware of the result? One school of thought says that it does, suggesting that consciousness is outside the quantum realm. But if quantum mechanics applies to the physicist, then she should be in an uncertain state that combines both outcomes until Wigner opens the box.

    Frauchiger and Renner have a yet more sophisticated version (see ‘New cats in town’). They have two Wigners, each doing an experiment on a physicist friend whom they keep in a box. One of the two friends (call her Alice) can toss a coin and — using her knowledge of quantum physics — prepare a quantum message to send to the other friend (call him Bob). Using his knowledge of quantum theory, Bob can detect Alice’s message and guess the result of her coin toss. When the two Wigners open their boxes, in some situations they can conclude with certainty which side the coin landed on, Renner says — but occasionally their conclusions are inconsistent. “One says, ‘I’m sure it’s tails,’ and the other one says, ‘I’m sure it’s heads,’” Renner says.
    But the two conflicting answers are not mere belief, they are certitudes handed down by quantum mechanical mathematics. It is not a mere matter of the belief of the two outside physicists, but what a rigorous application of quantum tells them--and the answers conflict.

    When I was in grad school in philosophy of science, one of the most important things I learned was that when you derive a contradiction from your line of reasoning, the assumptions you are using, either knowingly or unknowingly, are incompatible and you better go look for the flawed assumption. Frauchiger and Renner give the assumptions that go into their analysis:

    Originally posted by Frauchiger and Renner, "Quantum Theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself" Nature, Sept 18, 2018
    It asserts that three natural-sounding assumptions, (Q), (C), and (S), cannot all be valid. Assumption (Q) captures the universal validity of quantum theory (or, more specifically, that an agent can be certain that a given proposition holds whenever the quantum-mechanical Born rule assigns probability-1 to it). Assumption (C) demands consistency, in the sense that the different agents’ predictions are not contradictory. Finally, (S) is the requirement that, from the viewpoint of an agent who carries out a particular measurement, this measurement has one single outcome. The theorem itself is neutral in the sense that it does not tell us which of these three assumptions is wrong. However, it implies that any specific interpretation of quantum theory, when applied to the Gedankenexperiment, will necessarily conflict with at least one of them.
    Assumption Q, Universal applicability of Quantum. Most physicists and other scientists have used the materialistic assumption that quantum mechanics applies to all things inside this universe, including our consciousness/ mind/ soul. If our minds/souls are expressions of the workings of matter and some sort of epiphenomenon of complex matter, then mental states would be subject to the laws of quantum dynamics. Many suggestions have been made that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind for discussions of quantum theories of the mind. Others think it is ridiculous to think consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. If this latter group is correct, then the laws of physics as we know them, doesn't apply to mind/soul, and that would include quantum mechanics. They would be consistent with the above view that the observer is above and logically prior to matter as expressed by the three physicists above, but generally this second group of physicists don't believe in souls or God or other spiritual entities. Their position is inconsistent with the observation that somehow mind/soul is " outside of the description provided by physics" as Stephen Barr said above.
    To me, assumption Q is the weak link in the set of assumptions. Mind is not subject to quantum mechanics, and that means it is something entirely different--something like a soul.

    Assumption C--consistency. This is the real sine qua non of science and knowledge. If our theories are inconsistent, then all knowledge is impossible to obtain. If today when I measure the bounce of a ball and the height decreases with every bounce, then I know the laws of physics (friction and energy conservation) as we know them apply. But if tomorrow, the ball bounces higher and higher after each bounce, eventually shooting off into space, inconsistent with what we know of physics, then all we could do is shrug our shoulders and say we don't understand nature. Consistency is the very touchstone of logic. As a professor once proved in my class, from any inconsistency he can prove that the Pope is protestant, and he did as we students pealed off one inconsistency after another. If C is not valid, shut your science books and start reading Tarot Cards.

    Assumption S--singular results. Frauchiger and Renner say " from the viewpoint of an agent who carries out a particular measurement, this measurement has one single outcome" This is totally consistent with our experience. We never experience multiple outcomes of a quantum experiment--it is one or the other--binary. I don't see how this can be the weak sister of the assumptions.

    This all says one thing, there is something in the situation to which quantum doesn't apply. Maybe it doesn't apply to macroscopic objects, but already objects large enough to be seen have been placed in superposition

    Originally posted by Jason Palmer, "Team's quantum object is biggest by factor of billions" [url
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8570836.stm[/url] ]" The result is a huge push toward answering the question of whether quantum mechanical effects simply disappear in objects beyond a certain size.

    "As far as mechanical objects are concerned, the dividing line was at around 60 atoms," Professor Cleland said.

    "With this experiment, we've shown that the dividing line can be pushed up all the way to about a trillion atoms."
    Before I die, I expect a macroscopic tardigrade will have been put into superposition, showing that quantum applies to even bigger macroscopic objects. The only other thing in the lab which is being modeled, is consciousness, and so this leaves the conclusion that it is the observer using quantum can't be modeled by quantum. So to me, this points to the fact that consciousness is not subject to the laws of physics. There are instances of where it becomes clear that mind is bigger than matter.

    A detour: When I was struggling with whether or not to give up Christianity, a struggle which lasted 10 years, in which my wife and middle son thought I would become an atheist, there was one thing I could not get around-- my Turkish translator experience. I was at a Christian conference in Dallas, TX in 1969, and we had just heard a sermon on praying specifically. Don't pray for the missionaries in Africa cause you don't know if the prayer was answered or not. Pray for something that you will KNOW has been answered.

    Thus, at 1 am in the lobby of the Adolphus Hotel, a college woman came up to me and my best friend, Wayne Sparkman, and asked us if we knew where she could find a Turkish translator. They wanted to share the Gospel with a Turkish guy staying in the hotel. Middle Easterners were very rare in the country in 1969 and later a linguist told me that about 95% of all the 5000 Turkish speakers in the US at that time lived in New York City. Well, I don't know what made me say this, but I said, Let's pray for a Turkish translator to come to a specific desk (there were 2 check in desks) in 10 min. When we finished praying, my roommate and best friend, Wayne, asked if we shouldn't start looking. Again, I don't know what made me say this, but I said, "We still have 8 min." We stood there for 8 more minutes. At exactly 10 m, a guy entered the hotel and went to that very desk. Wayne asked me to go see if the guy spoke Turkish. I was freaked out and couldn't, so Wayne did it. The guy had been a Air Force interpreter in Turkey; he worked as a short order cook in downtown Dallas and had never before been in the Adolphus Hotel. In fact this was not on his way home, but he needed to buy some cigarettes and so came to the Hotel to get some. I worked up the odds of that happening by chance and it was an astounding number against such an occurrence happening by chance--yeah some have tried to suggest it was a grand fluke, like meeting a friend in Tallinn Estonia in a bar when he doesn't drink, but I couldn't say that because of the time requirement--precisely 10 minutes in a 10 ft square area. Flukes like meeting your friend don't involve asking God for your friend to be there at a specific time.

    So years later when discussing atheism vs theism with Wil Provine, a well known evangelical atheist if there ever was one, and I had finally kinda given up on Christianity and told him to email me his best proof of atheism, he told me there was no proof of atheism. I was shocked. What he had was faith; what I had was faith AND an experience--like Ellie Arroway in the movie Contact--I had an experience with God. I couldn't become an atheist because they had nothing really to offer in the way of reality or proof. They had no experience nor scientific proof of their position. Why? I think they could be atheists because they had had no contact with the supreme consciousness.

    My oldest son's wife is Singaporean Chinese. She was raised in a Daoist home, although her father by then was really kind of nothing--no beliefs. She was the first of her family to become a Christian and through her, her brother became a Christian, and through them, their cousins all became Christian. When she and Dan married, we went to Singapore for the tea ceremony, minus the religious aspects of it and her father took us up to Melakka, Malaysia where his sister lived and acted as a guide through the traditional Daoist Temple in Melakka. Oo Hong Hee, her father, explained Daoism to me but it was clear that he no longer believed it. When his mother died about 4 years ago, both he and his wife became Christians along with his wife's grandparents. My daughter-in-law was instrumental in winning almost her whole family to Christ.

    But then 6 months after he became a Christian, he was given a death sentence, a cancer on his neck or head. I wondered what the effect of this would be on his new found faith? Well, I now call him miracle man, to his face. A few months later, the cancer totally disappeared, and he became a far more devout Christian than I.

    As I have thought about this, I think God gives to each Christian what they need to deal with whatever pressures that they will encounter so that they can have an Ebenezer stone to look at, to keep them Christian. I needed a Turkish translator; Hong Hee needed a cancer miracle, but we both had encounters with God--and that is consistent with the observational data from Quantum that spirit is more important than matter; that spirit is not explainable by the mathematics of Quantum. Disbelieve if you like, but if so, please don't ignore the scientific data that goes against your position, mind seems to be something different and outside the realm of science.

  • #2
    Yes , Quantum Mechanics applies to all things at the foundation level of the subatomic level, but in the macro world it is not deterministic as to the outcomes of cause and effect relationships like those that result in brain and the mind.

    I do not believe Quantum Mechanics was ever intended to model the mind. The brain and the mind are the result of cause and effect outcomes of the evolution of life at the macro level of physical existence.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-28-2018, 07:37 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      If I actually thought you understood what you are talking about Frank, I would feel better about it. My guess is you have never studied the math or used the math of quantum, as I have, both as a student and professionally. And you are absolutely wrong about people not wanting to use Quantum to model the mind--Roger Penrose has advocated that for years and most atheists, who don't believe in spirit or mind save as an epiphenomenon of the brain must go somewhere for their explanation of consciousness and often it is to quantum. Even David Deutsch, advocate of Many World's view has toyed with such an explanation--which this work says won't work.


      Originally posted by David Deutsch,”Quantum Computation,” in John Brockman, “The New Humanists,” (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2003), p. 190
      “Quantum mechanics, in the traditional formulation, seems to have a nonlocal character-that is, things you do here seem instantaneously to affect things that happen there. It has been known from the beginning that this so-called nonlocality cannot be used to send signals-that is, information. But still, philosophically, what are we to make of it? What sort of reality is quantum mechanics telling us we live in? And of course it's hard not to wonder, "Well, if something gets there instantaneously, that something is going faster than light. So in another reference frame, it's traveling into the past. So it could create paradoxes; couldn't that solve the problem of consciousness, explain telepathy, summon up ghosts?"-you name it. This "nonlocality" is one of the ideas that has fueled the appalling mysticism and doubletalk that has grown up around quantum mechanics over the decades.”
      The problem with your response Frank is that you show up with no new data or argument, just your belief system. Your belief system is meaningless without data which you always seem to lack

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by grmorton View Post
        If I actually thought you understood what you are talking about Frank, I would feel better about it. My guess is you have never studied the math or used the math of quantum, as I have, both as a student and professionally. And you are absolutely wrong about people not wanting to use Quantum to model the mind--Roger Penrose has advocated that for years and most atheists, who don't believe in spirit or mind save as an epiphenomenon of the brain must go somewhere for their explanation of consciousness and often it is to quantum. Even David Deutsch, advocate of Many World's view has toyed with such an explanation--which this work says won't work.




        The problem with your response Frank is that you show up with no new data or argument, just your belief system. Your belief system is meaningless without data which you always seem to lack
        The problem is with your comprehension of the difference between the micro world of Quantum Mechanics, and the macro world of cause and effect outcome relationships in our physical existence. The mind is a product of the brain, which is a product of cause and effect outcomes in the macro world.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          The problem is with your comprehension of the difference between the micro world of Quantum Mechanics, and the macro world of cause and effect outcome relationships in our physical existence. The mind is a product of the brain, which is a product of cause and effect outcomes in the macro world.
          Again, a data free exposition of your belief. In geophysics we cynically speak of data free noise, something we don't want. Frank, that is what you provide here. You haven't even pointed out a comprehensional difference but state that there is one. sheesh. It is useless to converse with you. Do you not think the brain has micro components, like atoms and molecules? sheesh, While I don't believe that quantum can explain the mind, it is the only place naturalists can go to for an explanation of consciousness. The brain is made of micro components, so it isn't entirely stupid of them to attempt this. What the Nature article shows is that Mind can't be explained by quantum.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by grmorton View Post
            Again, a data free exposition of your belief. In geophysics we cynically speak of data free noise, something we don't want. Frank, that is what you provide here. You haven't even pointed out a comprehensional difference but state that there is one. sheesh. It is useless to converse with you. Do you not think the brain has micro components, like atoms and molecules? sheesh, While I don't believe that quantum can explain the mind, it is the only place naturalists can go to for an explanation of consciousness. The brain is made of micro components, so it isn't entirely stupid of them to attempt this. What the Nature article shows is that Mind can't be explained by quantum.
            I understand the nature and claims of the article, but Quantum Mechanics was never intended to explain the mind and consciousness. Naturalists do not look to to Quantum Mechanics to explain the mind and consciousness. If they turn to science to explain the mind and consciousness it is the science of the macro world of biology, and neurology.

            Naturalists look to Quantum Mechanics to explain the nature and characteristics of the sub atomic world on the Quantum scale.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-29-2018, 04:08 PM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              I understand the nature and claims of the article, but Quantum Mechanics was never intended to explain the mind and consciousness. Naturalists do not look to to Quantum Mechanics to explain the mind and consciousness. If they turn to science to explain the mind and consciousness it is the science of the macro world of biology, and neurology.

              Naturalists look to Quantum Mechanics to explain the nature and characteristics of the sub atomic world on the Quantum scale.
              Not a single reference to support what you say. That is what is so frustrating with you Frank. You seem never to have read anything relevant to any of the topics your comment on, so you just spout your belief. I have given references for people talking about quantum and consciousness. You are way out of step with what many people think. they do think that quantum and consciousness are related. Andrew Zimmerman Jones says:


              Is Consciousness Related to Quantum Physics?
              First, let's get the easy aspect of this answer out of the way:

              Yes, quantum physics is related to consciousness. The brain is a physical organism that transmits electrochemical signals. These are explained by biochemistry and, ultimately, are related to the fundamental electromagnetic behaviors of molecules and atoms, which are dictated by the laws of quantum physics. In the same way that every physical system is governed by quantum physical laws, the brain is certainly governed by them as well and consciousness - which is clearly in some way related to the functioning of the brain - must therefore be related to the quantum physical processes going on within the brain. https://www.thoughtco.com/is-conscio...hysics-2698801

              Now, your claim that it was NEVER meant to explain consciousness is false. You simply don't know what you are talking about. The fact that quantum WON'T model an observer is what I am talking about. This new papers strongly leads to the idea that Quantum can't model consciousness. regardless of whether quantum was meant to do so or not.

              Frank, spouting off about what you believe is meaningless and narcissistic. You are not the fount of all knowledge and if you can't provide references for the concept that quantum was never meant to explain consciousness, cease posting your nonsense.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by grmorton View Post
                Not a single reference to support what you say. That is what is so frustrating with you Frank. You seem never to have read anything relevant to any of the topics your comment on, so you just spout your belief. I have given references for people talking about quantum and consciousness. You are way out of step with what many people think. they do think that quantum and consciousness are related. Andrew Zimmerman Jones says:


                Is Consciousness Related to Quantum Physics?
                First, let's get the easy aspect of this answer out of the way:

                Yes, quantum physics is related to consciousness. The brain is a physical organism that transmits electrochemical signals. These are explained by biochemistry and, ultimately, are related to the fundamental electromagnetic behaviors of molecules and atoms, which are dictated by the laws of quantum physics. In the same way that every physical system is governed by quantum physical laws, the brain is certainly governed by them as well and consciousness - which is clearly in some way related to the functioning of the brain - must therefore be related to the quantum physical processes going on within the brain. https://www.thoughtco.com/is-conscio...hysics-2698801

                Now, your claim that it was NEVER meant to explain consciousness is false. You simply don't know what you are talking about. The fact that quantum WON'T model an observer is what I am talking about. This new papers strongly leads to the idea that Quantum can't model consciousness. regardless of whether quantum was meant to do so or not.

                Frank, spouting off about what you believe is meaningless and narcissistic. You are not the fount of all knowledge and if you can't provide references for the concept that quantum was never meant to explain consciousness, cease posting your nonsense.
                Actually reference confirms my view as cited below. The mind and consciousness is 'related' to consciousness just like everything else in our physical existence,

                Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/is-consciousness-related-to-quantum-physics-2698801



                Yes, quantum physics is related to consciousness. The brain is a physical organism that transmits electrochemical signals. These are explained by biochemistry and, ultimately, are related to the fundamental electromagnetic behaviors of molecules and atoms, which are dictated by the laws of quantum physics. In the same way that every physical system is governed by quantum physical laws, the brain is certainly governed by them as well and consciousness - which is clearly in some way related to the functioning of the brain - must therefore be related to the quantum physical processes going on within the brain.

                Problem solved, then? Not quite. Why not? Just because quantum physics is generally involved in the operation of the brain, that doesn't actually answer the specific questions that come up in regard to consciousness and how it may be related to quantum physics. As with much of the problems that continue to remain open in our understanding of the universe (and human existence, for that matter), the situation is quite complex and requires a fair amount of background.

                © Copyright Original Source



                I look forward to others to offer their view with references,
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Actually reference confirms my view as cited below. The mind and consciousness is 'related' to consciousness just like everything else in our physical existence,

                  Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/is-consciousness-related-to-quantum-physics-2698801



                  Yes, quantum physics is related to consciousness. The brain is a physical organism that transmits electrochemical signals. These are explained by biochemistry and, ultimately, are related to the fundamental electromagnetic behaviors of molecules and atoms, which are dictated by the laws of quantum physics. In the same way that every physical system is governed by quantum physical laws, the brain is certainly governed by them as well and consciousness - which is clearly in some way related to the functioning of the brain - must therefore be related to the quantum physical processes going on within the brain.

                  Problem solved, then? Not quite. Why not? Just because quantum physics is generally involved in the operation of the brain, that doesn't actually answer the specific questions that come up in regard to consciousness and how it may be related to quantum physics. As with much of the problems that continue to remain open in our understanding of the universe (and human existence, for that matter), the situation is quite complex and requires a fair amount of background.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  I look forward to others to offer their view with references,
                  You don't even read what you post do you?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    Actually reference confirms my view as cited below. The mind and consciousness is 'related' to consciousness just like everything else in our physical existence..You don't even read what you post do you?
                    Because that was not what Shunya was arguing. He was arguing that quantum was never INTENDED to explain consciousness. AND I STATED IN POST 5 THAT QUANTUM IS THE ONLY PLACE MATERIALISTS CAN GO TO EXPLAIN MIND. It seems you don't read what I posted either. For your reading pleasure from post #5 "While I don't believe that quantum can explain the mind, it is the only place naturalists can go to for an explanation of consciousness. "

                    Why quote something supporting a position which I was already acknowledging? That seems stupid to me. So yes, I agree that for the materialist, the ONLY place they can go to explain consciousness in quantum, but the Nature article now shows as explained above, that you can't use quantum to model a mind using quantum dynamics. And that means, in light of the Nature article, materialists have no real place to explain consciousness. So, be picayune if you like, I had already conceded what you wanted me to quote. Bring something new to the discussion please. If this is the best counter you have, Im home free.



                    Edited to add for those who can't connect dots.

                    Materialists historically have had only one place they can go to explain consciousness--quantum

                    The guy quoted above, which I left out, was writing before the Nature article was published two weeks ago.


                    So in spite of him not being able to explain consciousness with quantum, he states what to him is an obvious fact, quantum MUST be involved in consciousness--because he does not believe in souls.

                    Since Frank had stated that Quantum was not intended to explain consciousness, I tried to point out that indeed it was intended by materialists to explain consciousness--Roger Penrose is a biggie in that area

                    But the Nature article clearly shows that it can't model a mind using quantum, thus falsifying the beliefs and hopes of the materialists

                    If quantum can't model a mind using quantum, then minds are not caused by quantum because to cause consciousness, quantum must be the math of consciousness.

                    If quantum can't model a mind using quantum, then that is highly supportive of the existence of souls---scientific support for the existence of souls.

                    And furthermore, it tends to disprove the materialist agenda which is to explain everything with matter and physics.
                    Last edited by grmorton; 09-30-2018, 04:59 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      You don't even read what you post do you?
                      I read what I post very very carefully, and yes it supports the view I presented without question.

                      From reference:

                      The brain is a physical organism that transmits electrochemical signals. These are explained by biochemistry and, ultimately, are related to the fundamental electromagnetic behaviors of molecules and atoms, which are dictated by the laws of quantum physics. In the same way that every physical system is governed by quantum physical laws, the brain is certainly governed by them as well and consciousness -

                      ALL things in our physical existence are governed at their foundation by Quantum physical laws including the brain mind and consciousness. Scientists use the science of the macro world to explain the brain, mind and consciousness through the sciences of the macro world such as biochemistry as cited above. They do not even try to explain the brain, mind and consciousness in terms of the Quantum physical laws.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-30-2018, 04:54 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        I read what I post very very carefully, and yes it supports the view I presented without question.

                        From reference:

                        The brain is a physical organism that transmits electrochemical signals. These are explained by biochemistry and, ultimately, are related to the fundamental electromagnetic behaviors of molecules and atoms, which are dictated by the laws of quantum physics. In the same way that every physical system is governed by quantum physical laws, the brain is certainly governed by them as well and consciousness -

                        ALL things in our physical existence are governed at their foundation by Quantum physical laws including the brain mind and consciousness. Scientists use the science of the macro world to explain the brain, mind and consciousness through the sciences of the macro world such as biochemistry as cited above. They do not even try to explain the brain, mind and consciousness in terms of the Quantum physical laws.
                        Yes, quantum has a role in the atoms and molecules of the brain, but as the Nature article shows, it can't explain mind.


                        Penrose's attempt to explain consciousness shows your assertion that they don't try is false.
                        Last edited by grmorton; 09-30-2018, 06:09 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by grmorton View Post
                          Because that was not what Shunya was arguing. He was arguing that quantum was never INTENDED to explain consciousness. AND I STATED IN POST 5 THAT QUANTUM IS THE ONLY PLACE MATERIALISTS CAN GO TO EXPLAIN MIND. It seems you don't read what I posted either. For your reading pleasure from post #5 "While I don't believe that quantum can explain the mind, it is the only place naturalists can go to for an explanation of consciousness. "

                          Why quote something supporting a position which I was already acknowledging? That seems stupid to me. So yes, I agree that for the materialist, the ONLY place they can go to explain consciousness in quantum, but the Nature article now shows as explained above, that you can't use quantum to model a mind using quantum dynamics. And that means, in light of the Nature article, materialists have no real place to explain consciousness. So, be picayune if you like, I had already conceded what you wanted me to quote. Bring something new to the discussion please. If this is the best counter you have, Im home free.



                          Edited to add for those who can't connect dots.

                          Materialists historically have had only one place they can go to explain consciousness--quantum

                          The guy quoted above, which I left out, was writing before the Nature article was published two weeks ago.


                          So in spite of him not being able to explain consciousness with quantum, he states what to him is an obvious fact, quantum MUST be involved in consciousness--because he does not believe in souls.

                          Since Frank had stated that Quantum was not intended to explain consciousness, I tried to point out that indeed it was intended by materialists to explain consciousness--Roger Penrose is a biggie in that area

                          But the Nature article clearly shows that it can't model a mind using quantum, thus falsifying the beliefs and hopes of the materialists

                          If quantum can't model a mind using quantum, then minds are not caused by quantum because to cause consciousness, quantum must be the math of consciousness.

                          If quantum can't model a mind using quantum, then that is highly supportive of the existence of souls---scientific support for the existence of souls.

                          And furthermore, it tends to disprove the materialist agenda which is to explain everything with matter and physics.
                          I don't know why shuny's words show up as mine in your post. Just to clarify, I was saying shuny's source doesn't back up his claim like he thinks it does.

                          I'm no expert, but based on what I've read from a variety of sources I agree with your stance on this grmorton.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                            I don't know why shuny's words show up as mine in your post. Just to clarify, I was saying shuny's source doesn't back up his claim like he thinks it does.

                            I'm no expert, but based on what I've read from a variety of sources I agree with your stance on this grmorton.
                            My most profuse apologies. I am very feisty. Sorry. Shunya doesn't every bring much to the table worthy or response to--just what he BELIEVES, but never data. And to Frank, I have answered why I didn't post what I had already said was the only place materialists can go to to explain consciousness, Frank.
                            Last edited by grmorton; 10-01-2018, 08:37 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by grmorton View Post
                              Yes, quantum has a role in the atoms and molecules of the brain, but as the Nature article shows, it can't explain mind.
                              Of course, Quantum Mechanics can't explain the mind and consciousness, and as referenced in the article, sciences like biochemistry and neurology are how science explains the brain, mind and consciousness as referenced.
                              Penrose's attempt to explain consciousness shows your assertion that they don't try is false.
                              Penrose's (?) attempt does not represent science I am reviewing Penrose's writing on this subject, and at present he concluded simply that Quantum Mechanics cannot explain the mind and consciousness, and he looked forward to a new(?) science to explain the mind and consciousness. I am not sure this reflects that Penrose tried to explain the mind and consciousness through Quantum Mechanics.

                              More to follow, but again Penrose and his efforts(?) do not represent science. Science explains the brain, mind and consciousness through macro world sciences like biochemistry, and neurology.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-01-2018, 10:01 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              48 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X