quantum consciousness

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Ginkgo
Posts: 2544
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: quantum consciousness

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Feb 02, 2014 3:05 am

jackles wrote:yes so the analogy is how it works ginkgo. the event in the analogy of the spinning discs takes place in location but by nolocal means as if the time and space between the discs is nonexistent.its this seeming nonexistance of time space which leads to the nonlocal discription and thats what it is.its not diffinable in terms of limit and is indistingishable to its self.it has no reference frame.but acts inside reference frames as if they did not exist.google it up some guy discribes it on utube.

I believe you.

What you are referring to is probably the idea that quantum particles exist outside of space/time. However, they are able (for what ever reason) to manifest themselves into the classical world. This is one interpretation of non-locality. There are of course other interpretations.

jackles
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: quantum consciousness

Post by jackles » Wed Feb 05, 2014 10:45 pm

could consciousness be its self super position.nonlocal super position.so the event takes place in the super consiousness of the mind but with the event having a seperate existance.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2544
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: quantum consciousness

Post by Ginkgo » Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:50 pm

jackles wrote:could consciousness be its self super position.nonlocal super position.so the event takes place in the super consiousness of the mind but with the event having a seperate existance.
Hi jackles,

I appreciate your interest in the subject. All I can do is give you my understanding, probably somewhat limited, but nonetheless I will continue.

It is easy to get confused with the idea of quantum consciousness, especially since it is fringe science. Some people would argue that it isn't any type of science at all. I will admit that this is a difficult argument to overcome.

The problem of consciousness has been round for thousands of years. Basically, I think we can now look at it in terms of three possibilities.

(a) Consciousness exists within the brain. In order to understand consciousness we only need to understand the brain.

(b) Consciousness exists outside the brain. Consciousness interacts with the physical brain.

(c) Consciousness exists both inside and outside of the brain. There is a continual interaction between the two types of consciousness.


I might be possible to say that quantum mechanics points to (c) being correct. It is by no means a scientific fact, it is just a pointer to a possibility.

Quantum consciousness exists as a type of proto-consciousness that is non-local. It is information that exists at the most fundamental level of the universe. People such as Hameroff would say this information cannot be destroyed and as such is retrievable.This would fit in with a quantum explanation. Hameroff would describe this information, or data as qualia. In other words,it is experience that exists without a subject to do the experiencing.

I think this has massive problems and perhaps it could be overcome by introducing the human mind as possessing knowledge. Both knowledge and information interacting may go some way in solving the problem. The problem still is that information and knowledge are inadequate to explain intelligence. It is possible to explain how and why a human is intelligent, but at this stage it is not possible to explain how an universe is intelligent.

jackles
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: quantum consciousness

Post by jackles » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:56 am

ginkgo it has to be the third of your options.inside and out side at one in the same moment.lets see why.well the cause of the energy construct as in man and woman originated in the big bang billions of years ago but it was the outside nonlocal pre omni present consciousness that did that job.during the big bang consciousness or noolocality became omnipresent to the then existing big bang event.so nonlocality created locality and at the same moment became omni present to that local creation.timespace being semilocal.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2544
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: quantum consciousness

Post by Ginkgo » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:18 pm

jackles wrote:could consciousness be its self super position.nonlocal super position.so the event takes place in the super consiousness of the mind but with the event having a seperate existance.

Hi Jackles,

You and everyone else are not interested in reading my long and boring expositions on the topic so I will try and keep this one brief . If I understand you question correctly then I would answer in the affirmative, provided you are suggesting two types of possibilities when it comes to the wave function collapse.

If we accept that quantum superposition is a separation of fundamental reality then there is a great deal of instability depending on the degree of separation in relation to entanglement. Large separations tends to make the wave function collapse very quickly in the environment. On the other hand,s mall separations tend to exist in a quantum states for a longer periods of time.

This ideas is interesting because it does away for the need of an observer to collapse the wave function. This idea is reflected in "The Emperors New Mind" by Roger Penrose. It goes by the name of, Objective Orchestrated Reduction. The process is objective because it doesn't require and observer to collapse the wave function. The 'conscious' environment does it, so the process is not just a probability question.

Coupled with this idea is quantum consciousness that is a human phenomenon. The idea is that the human brain functions like a quantum computer. I guess the difference here is that human conscious is different from environmental 'consciousness' because in a way we collapse the wave function. Basically, the idea being that the two quantum systems complement each other.

From our perspective we only think consciousness is a continuous process, it is actually a series of separated events. Hameroff believes that consciousness happens 40 times a second. We don't actually 'see' the bits in between because we cannot remember these moments. We get the impression that consciousness is a smooth process.

Interestingly enough this idea appears to have some validity in studies done by Prinz and others into the dis unified nature of consciousness. Anyway, I'll leave it there, except to say that I have problems with the idea of a "conscious" environment, even if it goes under the name of proto-consciousness.

jackles
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: quantum consciousness

Post by jackles » Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:24 pm

yes the consciousness of the individual under normal circumstances would be at or in harmony with the enviromental conisciousness .so inside and outside is the same as far as ordinary consciousness goes.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2544
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: quantum consciousness

Post by Ginkgo » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:07 pm

jackles wrote:yes the consciousness of the individual under normal circumstances would be at or in harmony with the enviromental conisciousness .so inside and outside is the same as far as ordinary consciousness goes.
It could be interpreted that way, but I see the problem being that we have data and information without an informer and experience without an experience-er. In other words, raw data and information. The idea is that the quantum brain can access this data and create an intelligent response. For example, have a qualia experience. But I still don't see how raw data, information and experience 'itself' can be intelligent.

I think the important point in all of this is to keep in mind this is not strictly science. It would be totally incorrect to jump on the bandwagon and say that quantum theory has proved the universe is intelligent. It hasn't.

jackles
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: quantum consciousness

Post by jackles » Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:44 pm

ginkgo its beond the need of intellgents.i think what we call intellegents might be robotics relative to field consciousness.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 6 guests