Quantum Consciousness

[pixelero]

At a recent conference, "Brakke Grond" in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, January 16-18, 2014, there was a Brainstorm Session on "Microtubules and the Big Consciousness Debate". It seems there have been some new research results that apparently confirm a controversial theory of consciousness published by Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff in Physics of Life Reviews some 20 years ago.

A report at elsevier.com says:

The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates [Penrose and Hameroff's] theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations

"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."

The topic I'd like to suggest for debate is: Do these new findings support the mystical view that non-living matter/energy can be conscious?

I suspect that consciousness will continue to be recognized only in biological organisms, despite the apparent quantum effects in the brain. These effects, as far as I can tell, have only been observed by brains, not crystals or trees... so far.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 49 by Divine Insight]

Divine Insight wrote:

So if you tell me that the brain is what is having this experience of awareness then we are right back to square one again. It is the substance of the universe that is having this experience.

Are you being paid by the word here? Wouldn't it be simpler to just say "God did it!" and be done with it?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 49 by Divine Insight]

Divine Insight wrote:

So if you tell me that the brain is what is having this experience of awareness then we are right back to square one again. It is the substance of the universe that is having this experience.

Are you being paid by the word here? Wouldn't it be simpler to just say "God did it!" and be done with it?

I would never say "God did it!". That implies an external theological God.

Instead I would simply echo what the mystics say, "Tat t'vam asi" meaning, "You are it".

If you are seeking the entity that has awareness all you need to do is look at yourself. You are it.

Nothing could be more obvious.

~~~~~

And whilst we are on the topic I might warn you not to think in terms of sentience.

Remember what sentience is. Sentience is an intellectual construction of a "self". It's an illusion. There is no "self" it just an abstract intellectual construction.

All that exists is the awareness that gave rise to this intellectual constructed abstraction of sentience.

So awareness is primordial. It's sentience that is fleeting.

You are pure awareness. Your sentience is a construction of that awareness.

The mystics have this covered quite literally to death.

Your sentience will "die" because it was never real to begin with.

But your awareness is eternal because it is what you are ultimately made of.

Have you ever studied the mystical philosophies?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 38 by Divine Insight]

I'm saying "We are conscious; we are part of the universe and insofar as we know we there is no part of us that is anything MORE than a part of this universe; therefore the substance of the universe, which has become manifest as us must necessarily be conscious,"

I'm saying "We burp and sneeze; we are part of the universe and insofar as we know we there is no part of us that is anything MORE than a part of this universe; therefore the substance of the universe, which has become manifest as us must necessarily burp and sneeze."

Do you suggest that quarks and leptons burp and sneeze? If not, why not? Is so, how so?

I've debated DI about this before. He engages in obscurantism. Its all word games and rhetoric. If you are willing to plod through the nonsense there isn't much left.

For example, he'll say that the "universe is conscious". But when you press him on the matter it turns out that all he really means is that the universe contains beings that are conscious; something we all agree on.


Furthermore, I've taken the time to painstakingly point out the concepts of emergence and abstraction. For example, a "chair" is an abstraction of atoms; I.E., chairs are a label we apply to a certain configuration of atoms. Yet chairs are real and not just a concept. Chairs also have a property known as "legs" and chairs can be sat upon. But atoms don't have legs and cannot be sat upon. So how is it that chairs, which are just made of atoms can have legs and be sat upon? The answer to this is similar to the answer to DI's question about "how does matter have an experience". He is confused and discussing two different aspects of reality at two different levels. He doesn't understand emergence and abstractions.

As for the OP, quantum consciousness is a failed hypothesis only supported by the irrational stubbornness of some fringe scientists. The majority of the scientific community (that study the brain/consciousness) have concluded the consciousness is a manifestation of a working brain. Multiple lines of converging evidence strongly support this conclusion. The problem is that the brain is extremely complex. There are over 100 billion neurons. That's more neurons than the number of transistors in the most highly advanced CPU in the commercial market. Understanding the architecture of the brain is a difficult and time consuming process, especially because, unlike a CPU, we don't have any blue prints or instructions to explain exactly what everything in the brain does and how exactly it does it. Furthermore, its unethical to perform human testing in most cases. Nonetheless our understanding is progressing fairly rapidly.

First, religious believers rejected the science that showed the earth was not the center of the universe. Next they rejected the science that showed humans evolved from other animals and share a common ancestor with all living organisms. And now they reject the science that shows the mind is nothing but the manifestation of a working brain.

Moderator Warning

Hi scourge99,

I've debated DI about this before. He engages in obscurantism. Its all word games and rhetoric. If you are willing to plod through the nonsense there isn't much left.

Clearly we can't talk about members in this fashion. Many debates repeat and people continue to hold positions we all feel are untenable, let us hope our next attempt at debate convinces them.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 52 by Divine Insight]

Divine Insight wrote:

Have you ever studied the mystical philosophies?

I like what little I know of Eastern ideas. They are certainly better than the vindictive tribal God of the Bible.

For example, the universe is the "breath of Brahma." Brahma is not a personal god, but a sort of eternal creative essense. When Brahma exhales, the universe comes into existence, containing innumerable tiny bits of Brahma called Monads. These monads wrap themselves in matter and evolve, first as inanimate particles, then primitive life, then plants, animals, finally as humans who develop personalities and continue to evolve through many reincarnations, eventually becoming spiritual beings. When Brahma inhales again, the universe vanishes and all these beings rejoin with Brahma and become a part of it. When Brahma exhales again, a new universe comes into existence and the process begins again. Obviously Brahma is a very slow breather.

This has some similarity to the beliefs of the early Christian Gnostics, condemned as a heresy by the early church. The Gnostics rejected the God of the Bible as a false impostor god who had created a flawed material world and trapped human souls in it for his own amusement, while the True God remained remote and pure. The serpent in the Garden of Eden was actually an "emanation" of the True God, trying to rescue the trapped human souls by giving them Divine Knowledge. Each of us has a tiny spark of the True God within us, our own "Inner Light," which we can develop spiritually through many reincarnations to finally escape from the material world and rejoin the True God.

I accept such ideas as an ultimate source, but they still give no hint of what consciousness actually IS, or how it wORKS. It simply pushes the question back a step.

[Divine Insight]

I accept such ideas as an ultimate source, but they still give no hint of what consciousness actually IS, or how it wORKS.

I agree, they don't answer the intellectual questions of how it works.

But then again, neither does science.

That's the fallacy right there. People have been mislead into thinking that science can actually explain everything. But in truth we have absolutely no reason to believe that whatsoever.

Science is just as helpless as mysticism. They are in precisely the same boat.

The only difference between them is that the mystics understand that they are in this boat, and the scientists are in denial.

[JohnPaul]

I accept such ideas as an ultimate source, but they still give no hint of what consciousness actually IS, or how it wORKS.

I agree, they don't answer the intellectual questions of how it works.

But then again, neither does science.

That's the fallacy right there. People have been mislead into thinking that science can actually explain everything. But in truth we have absolutely no reason to believe that whatsoever.

Science is just as helpless as mysticism. They are in precisely the same boat.

The only difference between them is that the mystics understand that they are in this boat, and the scientists are in denial.

The mystics may be sitting in the boat meditating and contemplating their navels, but the scientists are actually trying to row the boat. I still have hope for science. I see it as a necessary part of our development process.

[Divine Insight]

The mystics may be sitting in the boat meditating and contemplating their navels, but the scientists are actually trying to row the boat. I still have hope for science. I see it as a necessary part of our development process.

You're right. I misspoke.

It's not scientists who don't know what boat they are in. It's the radical atheists fundamentalists who think that science supports their views who have no clue.

Most scientists actually know better.

After all I'm a scientist myself, so I most certainly don't want to say anything bad against scientists or I would be defeating my own profession.

It's radical atheists who think that science supports their view who have no clue.

[Goat]

I accept such ideas as an ultimate source, but they still give no hint of what consciousness actually IS, or how it wORKS.

I agree, they don't answer the intellectual questions of how it works.

But then again, neither does science.

That's the fallacy right there. People have been mislead into thinking that science can actually explain everything. But in truth we have absolutely no reason to believe that whatsoever.

Science is just as helpless as mysticism. They are in precisely the same boat.

The only difference between them is that the mystics understand that they are in this boat, and the scientists are in denial.

I happen to disagree. It seems that 'mystics' go take the same problem, add WOO, and then claim they are in the same boat as scientists.

I don't see any evidence for the WOO to be added.

[Divine Insight]

I happen to disagree. It seems that 'mystics' go take the same problem, add WOO, and then claim they are in the same boat as scientists.

I don't see any evidence for the WOO to be added.

As soon as you mention WOO, you are taking about radical mystics who think they actually have explanations or knowledge that cannot be had.

I'm not talking about those kinds of "mystics", nor do I support that.

I'm talking about core philosophies, not about people who claim to have mystical powers or mystical knowledge.

[Goat]

I happen to disagree. It seems that 'mystics' go take the same problem, add WOO, and then claim they are in the same boat as scientists.

I don't see any evidence for the WOO to be added.

As soon as you mention WOO, you are taking about radical mystics who think they actually have explanations or knowledge that cannot be had.

I'm not talking about those kinds of "mystics", nor do I support that.

I'm talking about core philosophies, not about people who claim to have mystical powers or mystical knowledge.

As far as I can see, what you are describing as the 'core philosophies' are woo.