Quantum-Classical and Mind-Brain Connections; also quantum Zeno effect questions

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 27th March 2008, 05:15 AM

Henry Stapp at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has written a paper titled "A Model of the Quantum-Classical and Mind-Brain Connections, and of the Role of The Quantum Zeno Effect in the Physical Implementation of Conscious Intent." It is available here:

http://sts.lbl.gov/~stapp/QN.pdf

Quote:

Abstract

A simple exactly solvable model is given of the dynamical coupling between a person's classically described perceptions and that person's quantum mechanically described brain. The model is based jointly upon von Neumann's theory of measurements and the empirical findings of close connections between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain. A quantum-Zeno-effect-based mechanism is described that allows conscious intentions to influence brain activity in a functionally appropriate way. The robustness of this mechanism in the face of environmental decoherence effects is emphasized.

Can some of you comment on this paper?

~~ Paul

PixyMisa · 27th March 2008, 07:12 AM

Does "ugh" count as a comment, or were you looking for something more analytical?

Dancing David · 27th March 2008, 10:09 AM

OOOOOK?

A zeno effect is the suppresion of atomic decay through observation? So where are atoms decaying in the brain?

"synchronous oscillations " in sperate places in the brain, there might be some more convetional reasons.

Um the neurons are biochemical in nature, they do not use electrons in wires or silicon, what quantum effects?

The Man · 27th March 2008, 11:29 AM

Yikes

“that person's quantum mechanically described brain.”

Not a description I am familiar with.

“the empirical findings of close connections between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain.”

Ok, but what results from non-synchronous oscillations, confusion or even an epileptic seizure?

“A quantum-Zeno-effect-based mechanism is described that allows conscious intentions to influence brain activity in a functionally appropriate way.”

Or is it that normal electro-chemical based brain activity influences conscious intentions in a functionally appropriate way?

Originally Posted by Dancing David

A zeno effect is the suppresion of atomic decay through observation? So where are atoms decaying in the brain?

I do not know, but from what I was able to read “decaying in the brain” may be more responsible for this “model” then for any explanation of the influences of conscious intentions.

Walter Wayne · 27th March 2008, 05:15 PM

Reading the abstract it appears they are confused about QM. They are using the oft held myth that collapse of the wave function requires a conscious observer. A quick read of the introduction to the article seems to confirm this.

Quote:

This improved physical theory brings conscious human observer/agents into physics in an essential way that renders the classical conceptions of our bodies, including our brains, fundamentally deficient. The new theory accommodates a mechanism that
allows our conscious thoughts to influence our bodily actions without being reducible to any
physically describable feature or activity.

In other words, they argue that QM allows our consciousness to influence our brain and body, without being a result of our brain/body.

I'd look at the paper further, but it appears to be written in quantum-new-age, a language I am not fluent in.

Walt

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 27th March 2008, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Walter Wayne

Reading the abstract it appears they are confused about QM. They are using the oft held myth that collapse of the wave function requires a conscious observer. A quick read of the introduction to the article seems to confirm this.

And yet Henry Stapp is a well-known physicist working in QM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp

Here is some commentary by R. F. Streater:

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/stapp.html

who wrote this interesting book:

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Causes-be.../dp/3540365818

~~ Paul

PixyMisa · 27th March 2008, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Here is some commentary by R. F. Streater:

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/stapp.html

Streater provides an excellent expansion on my "ugh" - basically, that macro-scale quantum explanations for consciousness are only viable if you ignore everything known about consciousness. Stapp provides an implausible explanation for something that doesn't happen.

Fredrik · 27th March 2008, 06:42 PM

I googled his name and found one explanation of his point of view that went roughly like this:

We know that the universe can't be described using a bottom-up approach. (Huh? Do we really?) So there must be something new in a top-down approach that would give us a complete description of the universe. He assumes that wavefunction collapse is that something, and he believes that consciousness (which he thinks isn't bound by the same laws as everything else) is what collapses wavefunctions.

It sounds more like wishful thinking than physics to me, but maybe I have just misunderstood what this is all about.

Apathia · 27th March 2008, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Does "ugh" count as a comment, or were you looking for something more analytical?

Pixy, you beat me to that exact comment.

It's repugnant! repugnant, I say!

Jeff Corey · 27th March 2008, 07:56 PM

I tried to read it and gave up after trying to track down his first two references to see if they supported what he was saying. I don't think they did, but that's not my specialty.
This appears to be yet another case of respected scientists in one field going off the deep end in one where they have no background. Pauling and Jahn, for example.

MattusMaximus · 27th March 2008, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Fredrik

We know that the universe can't be described using a bottom-up approach. (Huh? Do we really?) So there must be something new in a top-down approach that would give us a complete description of the universe. He assumes that wavefunction collapse is that something, and he believes that consciousness (which he thinks isn't bound by the same laws as everything else) is what collapses wavefunctions.

Wow... where to start...

Why the hell would he make such assumptions? How does he even define consciousness? And if wavefunction collapse (a la the Copenhagen Interpretation) is supposedly what is defining the state of the universe, just what the heck is causing this collapse in the first place? Doesn't the CI concept of wavefunction collapse depend upon the measurement made by an observer outside the quantum system? So who is "outside" making the measurement? God? The FSM? Sounds more like metaphysics & philosophy than science to me.

And isn't saying that "consciousness isn't bound by the same laws as everything else" just another way of saying "I have no idea but let's say something that sounds cool"?

From what I've seen here, it sounds like a trip to Woo-ville to me

MattusMaximus · 27th March 2008, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Can some of you comment on this paper?

Paul, was this thing peer reviewed?

bokonon · 27th March 2008, 08:56 PM

Looks like somebody published the April 1 page a few days early.

Jeff Corey · 27th March 2008, 09:04 PM

A premature ejaculation.

Complexity · 28th March 2008, 02:28 AM

Utter garbage.

SezMe · 28th March 2008, 02:36 AM

I couldn't get passed the very first sentence:

Quote:

A simple exactly solvable model is given of the dynamical coupling between a person's classically described perceptions and that person's quantum mechanically described brain.

Now think about it. A simple, EXACTLY SOLVABLE model of what is a very complex topic. I'm with bokonon.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 28th March 2008, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by Mattus

Paul, was this thing peer reviewed?

It appears that some of his papers on consciousness are simply self-published and probably not peer-reviewed.

~~ Paul

godless dave · 28th March 2008, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I couldn't get passed the very first sentence:

past

(unless "the very first sentence" is a hockey puck and Marion Gaborik is trying to pass it to you)

That's rapidly replacing "could of" as my top grammar pet peeve.

The Man · 28th March 2008, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

And if wavefunction collapse (a la the Copenhagen Interpretation) is supposedly what is defining the state of the universe, just what the heck is causing this collapse in the first place?

What if we apply a “many worlds” QM interpretation to this CI theory of wave function collapse (or wave function bifurcation)? This would mean that the consciousness intention determines the resulting wave function even before the measurement is made. Should the observer make a mistake and perform the wrong measurement from what was intended the predetermined resulting wave function should conform to the intention and not the measurement. This is not the case; even a simple examination demonstrates that it is action not intention that contributes to determining the results.

SezMe · 28th March 2008, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

past

(unless "the very first sentence" is a hockey puck and Marion Gaborik is trying to pass it to you)

Oops, you're right. Guess I was the hockey puck.

Fredrik · 29th March 2008, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Wow... where to start...
...
From what I've seen here, it sounds like a trip to Woo-ville to me

LOL, I just noticed that the web site that gave me that impression of Stapp's ideas looks much "wooier" than that article. So don't take what I wrote above too seriously. Maybe I misrepresented Stapp's ideas there.

sol invictus · 30th March 2008, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Can some of you comment on this paper?

The quantum Zeno effect does not exist outside of a very narrow context - which does not include human brains.

Peter Soderqvist · 30th March 2008, 11:44 PM

Yes, either immaterial consciousness collapses the quantum wave function, through Newton's third law of motion which states that; "there is an reaction to every action", in example; the wavefunction impinges upon the conscious mind, and the mind react back by collapse the wave function. Since all other things made up of matter obey the law of quantum mechanics, there is no other possibility than that! Or that proposition is false, there is no collapse, the wave function decohere when disturbed by something outside the system, and thus the many world's interpretation is truth, that is how I have undestood David Dutsch's book; The Fabric of Reality!

Peter Soderqvist · 31st March 2008, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Quest for the Quantum Computer By Julian Brown Foreword by David Deutsch
MIT, IBM, Oxford University, and the University of California at Berkeley reported in 1998 that they had succeeded in building the first working computers based on quantum mechanics. In the early 1980s, Deutsch's proposed experiment (described more fully in Chapter 3) sounded like the stuff of science fiction. To test the existence of multiple universes, he envisaged the construction of a thinking, conscious artificial intelligence whose memory worked "at the quantum level." Such a machine, he claimed, could be asked to conduct a crucial experiment inside its own brain and report back to us whether Deutsch was indeed right to believe in the existence of parallel universes. The idea of assembling a conscious machine took some swallowing, but what exactly did Deutsch have in mind when he talked of "quantum memory"? Well, nearly 20 years later we have the answer because quantum computer memory is on the verge of becoming an experimental reality.
http://www.simonsays.com/content/boo...=411224&agid=2

Soderqvist1: if that machine afterward reported about many paths, the many world interpretation is truth, or if that machine reported about one path, then there is evidence for consciousness as collapser of wave function is truth!

athon · 31st March 2008, 04:17 AM

Firstly, is 'dynamical' a word? Why not 'dynamic'?

Second, I tried to read it but it felt like when one of my past students felt inclined to write an article taking the piss out of science (in a rather humorous way) by using as many science words as possible while avoiding making one iota of sense.

As far as I understand it, quantum rules just don't scale up. Period. The brain is a classical system, and so therefore trying to take quantum rules and scaling them up to comment on consciousness - a macroscopic phenomena - simply has no precedent in physics. As somebody said above, it's wishful thinking. In fact, I'd go so far as simply saying it's science fiction.

When quantum phenomena have observable, macroscopic ramifications, it might be worth asking if it plays a role in conscious thought. Until then, I see no reason to invoke it.

Athon

Dancing David · 31st March 2008, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by Peter Soderqvist

Soderqvist1: if that machine afterward reported about many paths, the many world interpretation is truth, or if that machine reported about one path, then there is evidence for consciousness as collapser of wave function is truth!

Perhaps wave fonctions don't collapse, they remain wave functions the whole time. they intersect which gives an approximation of where they intersected but they are still wave functions regardless of what we call them.

An electron being pinged by a photon is not 'consciousness', atoms absorb and radiate without our percieving them.

sol invictus · 31st March 2008, 05:13 AM

Consciousness is hard to understand.

Quantum mechanics is hard to understand.

Therefore, consciousness must be quantum mechanical?

godless dave · 31st March 2008, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Consciousness is hard to understand.

Quantum mechanics is hard to understand.

Therefore, consciousness must be quantum mechanical?

I think you've deciphered the woo thought process.

Ziggurat · 31st March 2008, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by sol invictus

The quantum Zeno effect does not exist outside of a very narrow context

If it exists at all.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...f5fd4e96322b67

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 7th April 2008, 06:51 AM

Okay, so I've been reading about this a bit more. Here is the Wiki article on the Quantum Zeno effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

I don't get it. Let's assume for a moment that the QZE is real. It seems that something like particle decay can be suppressed by rapidly measuring the system in question. This keeps the wavefunction collapsed and disallows the decay.

But then here is what the article says about Stapp's idea:

Originally Posted by Wiki

The quantum Zeno effect is becoming a central concept in the exploration of controversial and as-yet unproven theories of quantum mind consciousness within the discipline of cognitive science. In his book, "Mindful Universe" (2007) Henry Stapp, professor of quantum physics at UC Berkeley, claims that the quantum Zeno effect is the main method by which the mind holds a superposition of the state of the brain in the attention. He advances that this phenomenon is the principal method by which the conscious will effects change, a possible solution to the mind-body dichotomy.

This sounds like the opposite effect to me. He's appealing to QZE to hold a superposition of states rather than collapsing the system.

Ignoring for a moment whether this is a crazy idea, can someone clear up my misunderstanding?

~~ Paul

Ziggurat · 7th April 2008, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

This sounds like the opposite effect to me. He's appealing to QZE to hold a superposition of states rather than collapsing the system.

Ignoring for a moment whether this is a crazy idea, can someone clear up my misunderstanding?

~~ Paul

It's pretty ambiguous from that brief description. But one thing to keep in mind about quantum mechanics is that a state is just a state. It is only a superposition if you choose a particular basis set with which to describe that state, and you can in principle take ANY quantum state and find a basis set for which it is a superposition of two or more basis states. You can also take any quantum state and use that state as one of your basis states. These choices are in principle arbitrary, although certain basis sets are in practice easier to work with. How this is relevant to his theory is unclear from that quote (and may not even make sense if his theory is whack), but the quote itself isn't actually a contradiction. It just doesn't really have useful information for evaluating the theory.

AkuManiMani · 7th April 2008, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Streater provides an excellent expansion on my "ugh" - basically, that macro-scale quantum explanations for consciousness are only viable if you ignore everything known about consciousness.

Just what exactly is known about consciousness?

Originally Posted by sol invictus

Consciousness is hard to understand.

Quantum mechanics is hard to understand.

Therefore, consciousness must be quantum mechanical?

I think it would be more apt to say that since QM is supposedly a fundamental theory of physics and the brain/consciousness is based upon the laws of physics we may gain a better understanding of the brain/consciousness by looking at it in those terms

/shrug

Ichneumonwasp · 7th April 2008, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by The Man

“the empirical findings of close connections between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain.”

Ok, but what results from non-synchronous oscillations, confusion or even an epileptic seizure?

Desynchronization on EEG is one hallmark of the waking state. Synchronous activity of large brain areas or brain as a whole can be seen in sleep and in seizures -- obviously, in different ways.

I really have no idea what the author was talking about, unless he meant synchronization of a very small brain area; and we do not know that conscious intentions are closely connected to synchronous oscillations outside of something like the 40 Hz event related potential. Mostly we assume that this is the case.

The Man · 7th April 2008, 04:48 PM

Thanks for that clarification Ichneumonwasp, although I am not surprised that both the cited author and I got that association wrong. How about REM sleep, since one might perceive themselves as being awake, would that also be marked by large scale desynchronization or would it tend to be similarly synchronous as the other sleep phases?

Ichneumonwasp · 7th April 2008, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by The Man

Thanks for that clarification Ichneumonwasp, although I am not surprised that both the cited author and I got that association wrong. How about REM sleep, since one might perceive themselves as being awake, would that also be marked by large scale desynchronization or would it tend to be similarly synchronous as the other sleep phases?

Desynchronization. It almost, but not quite, looks like the waking state on the EEG.

The Man · 8th April 2008, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

Desynchronization. It almost, but not quite, looks like the waking state on the EEG.

Thanks, that's what I would have expected from the information in your other post.

27th March 2008, 05:15 AM	#1
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 17,452	Quantum-Classical and Mind-Brain Connections; also quantum Zeno effect questions Henry Stapp at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has written a paper titled "A Model of the Quantum-Classical and Mind-Brain Connections, and of the Role of The Quantum Zeno Effect in the Physical Implementation of Conscious Intent." It is available here: http://sts.lbl.gov/~stapp/QN.pdf Quote: Abstract A simple exactly solvable model is given of the dynamical coupling between a person's classically described perceptions and that person's quantum mechanically described brain. The model is based jointly upon von Neumann's theory of measurements and the empirical findings of close connections between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain. A quantum-Zeno-effect-based mechanism is described that allows conscious intentions to influence brain activity in a functionally appropriate way. The robustness of this mechanism in the face of environmental decoherence effects is emphasized. Can some of you comment on this paper? ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz Ontic vagueness may be what you're looking for. ---imiyakawa

27th March 2008, 07:12 AM	#2
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 8,903	Does "ugh" count as a comment, or were you looking for something more analytical?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

27th March 2008, 10:09 AM	#3
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 20,836	OOOOOK? A zeno effect is the suppresion of atomic decay through observation? So where are atoms decaying in the brain? "synchronous oscillations " in sperate places in the brain, there might be some more convetional reasons. Um the neurons are biochemical in nature, they do not use electrons in wires or silicon, what quantum effects?
	__________________ "Exhibit 1338A as to why the Politics forum is "where rational thought goes to die."-Carlitos "Join the Crusade against Moderator Impropriety -- a tradition since Tuesday!"-Remirol "When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Dom Helder Camara, Archbishop of Recife, Brazil

27th March 2008, 11:29 AM	#4
The Man Scourge, of the supernatural Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 4,850	Yikes “that person's quantum mechanically described brain.” Not a description I am familiar with. “the empirical findings of close connections between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain.” Ok, but what results from non-synchronous oscillations, confusion or even an epileptic seizure? “A quantum-Zeno-effect-based mechanism is described that allows conscious intentions to influence brain activity in a functionally appropriate way.” Or is it that normal electro-chemical based brain activity influences conscious intentions in a functionally appropriate way? Originally Posted by Dancing David A zeno effect is the suppresion of atomic decay through observation? So where are atoms decaying in the brain? I do not know, but from what I was able to read “decaying in the brain” may be more responsible for this “model” then for any explanation of the influences of conscious intentions.
	__________________ "Not a seat but a springboard” (1942 Winston Churchill) "As he who, seeking asses, found a kingdom" (1671 Milton "Paradise Regained") "for it seem'd A void was made in nature, all her bonds Crack'd; and I saw the flaring atom-streams And torrents of her myriad universe, Ruining along the illimitable inane, Fly on to clash together again, and make Another and another frame of things For ever." (1868 Tennyson "Lucretius")

27th March 2008, 05:24 PM	#6
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 17,452	Originally Posted by Walter Wayne Reading the abstract it appears they are confused about QM. They are using the oft held myth that collapse of the wave function requires a conscious observer. A quick read of the introduction to the article seems to confirm this. And yet Henry Stapp is a well-known physicist working in QM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp Here is some commentary by R. F. Streater: http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/stapp.html who wrote this interesting book: http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Causes-be.../dp/3540365818 ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz Ontic vagueness may be what you're looking for. ---imiyakawa

27th March 2008, 05:15 PM	#5
Walter Wayne Wayne's Words Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 2,142	Reading the abstract it appears they are confused about QM. They are using the oft held myth that collapse of the wave function requires a conscious observer. A quick read of the introduction to the article seems to confirm this. Quote: This improved physical theory brings conscious human observer/agents into physics in an essential way that renders the classical conceptions of our bodies, including our brains, fundamentally deficient. The new theory accommodates a mechanism that allows our conscious thoughts to influence our bodily actions without being reducible to any physically describable feature or activity. In other words, they argue that QM allows our consciousness to influence our brain and body, without being a result of our brain/body. I'd look at the paper further, but it appears to be written in quantum-new-age, a language I am not fluent in. Walt

27th March 2008, 06:42 PM	#7
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 8,903	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Here is some commentary by R. F. Streater: http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/stapp.html Streater provides an excellent expansion on my "ugh" - basically, that macro-scale quantum explanations for consciousness are only viable if you ignore everything known about consciousness. Stapp provides an implausible explanation for something that doesn't happen.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO Last edited by PixyMisa; 27th March 2008 at 06:43 PM.

27th March 2008, 06:42 PM	#8
Fredrik Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,176	I googled his name and found one explanation of his point of view that went roughly like this: We know that the universe can't be described using a bottom-up approach. (Huh? Do we really?) So there must be something new in a top-down approach that would give us a complete description of the universe. He assumes that wavefunction collapse is that something, and he believes that consciousness (which he thinks isn't bound by the same laws as everything else) is what collapses wavefunctions. It sounds more like wishful thinking than physics to me, but maybe I have just misunderstood what this is all about.
Fredrik Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,176

27th March 2008, 06:57 PM	#9
Apathia Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Tempe, AZ Posts: 2,499	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Does "ugh" count as a comment, or were you looking for something more analytical? Pixy, you beat me to that exact comment. It's repugnant! repugnant, I say!
	__________________ "At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections." Justice William O. Douglas "Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures." Author Unknown

27th March 2008, 07:56 PM	#10
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,128	I tried to read it and gave up after trying to track down his first two references to see if they supported what he was saying. I don't think they did, but that's not my specialty. This appears to be yet another case of respected scientists in one field going off the deep end in one where they have no background. Pauling and Jahn, for example.

27th March 2008, 08:35 PM	#11
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 8,354	Originally Posted by Fredrik We know that the universe can't be described using a bottom-up approach. (Huh? Do we really?) So there must be something new in a top-down approach that would give us a complete description of the universe. He assumes that wavefunction collapse is that something, and he believes that consciousness (which he thinks isn't bound by the same laws as everything else) is what collapses wavefunctions. Wow... where to start... Why the hell would he make such assumptions? How does he even define consciousness? And if wavefunction collapse (a la the Copenhagen Interpretation) is supposedly what is defining the state of the universe, just what the heck is causing this collapse in the first place? Doesn't the CI concept of wavefunction collapse depend upon the measurement made by an observer outside the quantum system? So who is "outside" making the measurement? God? The FSM? Sounds more like metaphysics & philosophy than science to me. And isn't saying that "consciousness isn't bound by the same laws as everything else" just another way of saying "I have no idea but let's say something that sounds cool"? From what I've seen here, it sounds like a trip to Woo-ville to me
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Women Thinking Free Foundation (WTFF) Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die...

27th March 2008, 08:37 PM	#12
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 8,354	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Can some of you comment on this paper? Paul, was this thing peer reviewed?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Women Thinking Free Foundation (WTFF) Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die...

27th March 2008, 08:56 PM	#13
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,479	Looks like somebody published the April 1 page a few days early.
bokonon Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 3,479

27th March 2008, 09:04 PM	#14
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,128	A premature ejaculation.

28th March 2008, 02:28 AM	#15
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 5,912	Utter garbage.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

28th March 2008, 02:36 AM	#16
SezMe Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 9,504	I couldn't get passed the very first sentence: Quote: A simple exactly solvable model is given of the dynamical coupling between a person's classically described perceptions and that person's quantum mechanically described brain. Now think about it. A simple, EXACTLY SOLVABLE model of what is a *very* complex topic. I'm with bokonon.

28th March 2008, 05:32 AM	#17
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 17,452	Originally Posted by Mattus Paul, was this thing peer reviewed? It appears that some of his papers on consciousness are simply self-published and probably not peer-reviewed. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz Ontic vagueness may be what you're looking for. ---imiyakawa

28th March 2008, 07:21 AM	#18
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 4,148	Originally Posted by SezMe I couldn't get passed the very first sentence: past (unless "the very first sentence" is a hockey puck and Marion Gaborik is trying to pass it to you) That's rapidly replacing "could of" as my top grammar pet peeve.
	Last edited by godless dave; 28th March 2008 at 07:22 AM.

28th March 2008, 08:16 AM	#19
The Man Scourge, of the supernatural Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 4,850	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus And if wavefunction collapse (a la the Copenhagen Interpretation) is supposedly what is defining the state of the universe, just what the heck is causing this collapse in the first place? What if we apply a “many worlds” QM interpretation to this CI theory of wave function collapse (or wave function bifurcation)? This would mean that the consciousness intention determines the resulting wave function even before the measurement is made. Should the observer make a mistake and perform the wrong measurement from what was intended the predetermined resulting wave function should conform to the intention and not the measurement. This is not the case; even a simple examination demonstrates that it is action not intention that contributes to determining the results.
	__________________ "Not a seat but a springboard” (1942 Winston Churchill) "As he who, seeking asses, found a kingdom" (1671 Milton "Paradise Regained") "for it seem'd A void was made in nature, all her bonds Crack'd; and I saw the flaring atom-streams And torrents of her myriad universe, Ruining along the illimitable inane, Fly on to clash together again, and make Another and another frame of things For ever." (1868 Tennyson "Lucretius")

28th March 2008, 01:46 PM	#20
SezMe Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 9,504	Originally Posted by godless dave past (unless "the very first sentence" is a hockey puck and Marion Gaborik is trying to pass it to you) Oops, you're right. Guess I was the hockey puck.

29th March 2008, 11:31 PM	#21
Fredrik Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,176	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Wow... where to start... ... From what I've seen here, it sounds like a trip to Woo-ville to me LOL, I just noticed that the web site that gave me that impression of Stapp's ideas looks much "wooier" than that article. So don't take what I wrote above too seriously. Maybe I misrepresented Stapp's ideas there.
Fredrik Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,176	Last edited by Fredrik; 29th March 2008 at 11:32 PM.

30th March 2008, 12:23 PM	#22
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 5,761	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Can some of you comment on this paper? The quantum Zeno effect does not exist outside of a very narrow context - which does not include human brains.
	Last edited by sol invictus; 30th March 2008 at 12:26 PM.

30th March 2008, 11:44 PM	#23
Peter Soderqvist Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 305	Yes, either immaterial consciousness collapses the quantum wave function, through Newton's third law of motion which states that; "there is an reaction to every action", in example; the wavefunction impinges upon the conscious mind, and the mind react back by collapse the wave function. Since all other things made up of matter obey the law of quantum mechanics, there is no other possibility than that! Or that proposition is false, there is no collapse, the wave function decohere when disturbed by something outside the system, and thus the many world's interpretation is truth, that is how I have undestood David Dutsch's book; The Fabric of Reality!
	__________________ A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! Last edited by Peter Soderqvist; 30th March 2008 at 11:56 PM.

31st March 2008, 12:07 AM	#24
Peter Soderqvist Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 305	Quote: Quest for the Quantum Computer By Julian Brown Foreword by David Deutsch MIT, IBM, Oxford University, and the University of California at Berkeley reported in 1998 that they had succeeded in building the first working computers based on quantum mechanics. In the early 1980s, Deutsch's proposed experiment (described more fully in Chapter 3) sounded like the stuff of science fiction. To test the existence of multiple universes, he envisaged the construction of a thinking, conscious artificial intelligence whose memory worked "at the quantum level." Such a machine, he claimed, could be asked to conduct a crucial experiment inside its own brain and report back to us whether Deutsch was indeed right to believe in the existence of parallel universes. The idea of assembling a conscious machine took some swallowing, but what exactly did Deutsch have in mind when he talked of "quantum memory"? Well, nearly 20 years later we have the answer because quantum computer memory is on the verge of becoming an experimental reality. http://www.simonsays.com/content/boo...=411224&agid=2 Soderqvist1: if that machine afterward reported about many paths, the many world interpretation is truth, or if that machine reported about one path, then there is evidence for consciousness as collapser of wave function is truth!
	__________________ A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! Last edited by Peter Soderqvist; 31st March 2008 at 12:13 AM.

31st March 2008, 04:17 AM	#25
athon Kowalski Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: gone Posts: 9,286	Firstly, is 'dynamical' a word? Why not 'dynamic'? Second, I tried to read it but it felt like when one of my past students felt inclined to write an article taking the piss out of science (in a rather humorous way) by using as many science words as possible while avoiding making one iota of sense. As far as I understand it, quantum rules just don't scale up. Period. The brain is a classical system, and so therefore trying to take quantum rules and scaling them up to comment on consciousness - a macroscopic phenomena - simply has no precedent in physics. As somebody said above, it's wishful thinking. In fact, I'd go so far as simply saying it's science fiction. When quantum phenomena have observable, macroscopic ramifications, it might be worth asking if it plays a role in conscious thought. Until then, I see no reason to invoke it. Athon

31st March 2008, 04:49 AM	#26
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 20,836	Originally Posted by Peter Soderqvist Soderqvist1: if that machine afterward reported about many paths, the many world interpretation is truth, or if that machine reported about one path, then there is evidence for consciousness as collapser of wave function is truth! Perhaps wave fonctions don't collapse, they remain wave functions the whole time. they intersect which gives an approximation of where they intersected but they are still wave functions regardless of what we call them. An electron being pinged by a photon is not 'consciousness', atoms absorb and radiate without our percieving them.
	__________________ "Exhibit 1338A as to why the Politics forum is "where rational thought goes to die."-Carlitos "Join the Crusade against Moderator Impropriety -- a tradition since Tuesday!"-Remirol "When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." Dom Helder Camara, Archbishop of Recife, Brazil

31st March 2008, 05:13 AM	#27
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 5,761	Consciousness is hard to understand. Quantum mechanics is hard to understand. Therefore, consciousness must be quantum mechanical?

31st March 2008, 08:51 AM	#28
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 4,148	Originally Posted by sol invictus Consciousness is hard to understand. Quantum mechanics is hard to understand. Therefore, consciousness must be quantum mechanical? I think you've deciphered the woo thought process.

31st March 2008, 09:31 AM	#29
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 15,520	Originally Posted by sol invictus The quantum Zeno effect does not exist outside of a very narrow context If it exists at all. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...f5fd4e96322b67
	__________________ "There is certainly not one government in Europe but is now watching the war in this country, with the ardent prayer that the united States may be effectually split, crippled, and dismember'd by it... We are all too prone to wander from ourselves, to affect Europe, and watch her frowns and smiles. We need this hot lesson of general hatred, and henceforth must never forget it. Never again will we trust the moral sense nor abstract friendliness of a single government of the world." - Walt Whitman, 1864

7th April 2008, 06:51 AM	#30
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 17,452	Okay, so I've been reading about this a bit more. Here is the Wiki article on the Quantum Zeno effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect I don't get it. Let's assume for a moment that the QZE is real. It seems that something like particle decay can be suppressed by rapidly measuring the system in question. This keeps the wavefunction collapsed and disallows the decay. But then here is what the article says about Stapp's idea: Originally Posted by Wiki The quantum Zeno effect is becoming a central concept in the exploration of controversial and as-yet unproven theories of quantum mind consciousness within the discipline of cognitive science. In his book, "Mindful Universe" (2007) Henry Stapp, professor of quantum physics at UC Berkeley, claims that the quantum Zeno effect is the main method by which the mind holds a superposition of the state of the brain in the attention. He advances that this phenomenon is the principal method by which the conscious will effects change, a possible solution to the mind-body dichotomy. This sounds like the opposite effect to me. He's appealing to QZE to hold a superposition of states rather than collapsing the system. Ignoring for a moment whether this is a crazy idea, can someone clear up my misunderstanding? ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz Ontic vagueness may be what you're looking for. ---imiyakawa

7th April 2008, 09:29 AM	#31
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 15,520	Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos This sounds like the opposite effect to me. He's appealing to QZE to hold a superposition of states rather than collapsing the system. Ignoring for a moment whether this is a crazy idea, can someone clear up my misunderstanding? ~~ Paul It's pretty ambiguous from that brief description. But one thing to keep in mind about quantum mechanics is that a state is just a state. It is only a superposition if you choose a particular basis set with which to describe that state, and you can in principle take ANY quantum state and find a basis set for which it is a superposition of two or more basis states. You can also take any quantum state and use that state as one of your basis states. These choices are in principle arbitrary, although certain basis sets are in practice easier to work with. How this is relevant to his theory is unclear from that quote (and may not even make sense if his theory is whack), but the quote itself isn't actually a contradiction. It just doesn't really have useful information for evaluating the theory.
	__________________ "There is certainly not one government in Europe but is now watching the war in this country, with the ardent prayer that the united States may be effectually split, crippled, and dismember'd by it... We are all too prone to wander from ourselves, to affect Europe, and watch her frowns and smiles. We need this hot lesson of general hatred, and henceforth must never forget it. Never again will we trust the moral sense nor abstract friendliness of a single government of the world." - Walt Whitman, 1864

7th April 2008, 10:15 AM	#32
AkuManiMani Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: On the crumbly edge of Is and Maybe Posts: 2,329	Originally Posted by PixyMisa Streater provides an excellent expansion on my "ugh" - basically, that macro-scale quantum explanations for consciousness are only viable if you ignore everything known about consciousness. Just what exactly is known about consciousness? Originally Posted by sol invictus Consciousness is hard to understand. Quantum mechanics is hard to understand. Therefore, consciousness must be quantum mechanical? I think it would be more apt to say that since QM is supposedly a fundamental theory of physics and the brain/consciousness is based upon the laws of physics we may gain a better understanding of the brain/consciousness by looking at it in those terms /shrug
	__________________ "Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished." Last edited by AkuManiMani; 7th April 2008 at 10:21 AM.

7th April 2008, 12:16 PM	#33
Ichneumonwasp Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,665	Originally Posted by The Man “the empirical findings of close connections between conscious intentions and synchronous oscillations in well separated parts of the brain.” Ok, but what results from non-synchronous oscillations, confusion or even an epileptic seizure? Desynchronization on EEG is one hallmark of the waking state. Synchronous activity of large brain areas or brain as a whole can be seen in sleep and in seizures -- obviously, in different ways. I really have no idea what the author was talking about, unless he meant synchronization of a very small brain area; and we do not know that conscious intentions are closely connected to synchronous oscillations outside of something like the 40 Hz event related potential. Mostly we assume that this is the case.

7th April 2008, 04:48 PM	#34
The Man Scourge, of the supernatural Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 4,850	Thanks for that clarification Ichneumonwasp, although I am not surprised that both the cited author and I got that association wrong. How about REM sleep, since one might perceive themselves as being awake, would that also be marked by large scale desynchronization or would it tend to be similarly synchronous as the other sleep phases?
	__________________ "Not a seat but a springboard” (1942 Winston Churchill) "As he who, seeking asses, found a kingdom" (1671 Milton "Paradise Regained") "for it seem'd A void was made in nature, all her bonds Crack'd; and I saw the flaring atom-streams And torrents of her myriad universe, Ruining along the illimitable inane, Fly on to clash together again, and make Another and another frame of things For ever." (1868 Tennyson "Lucretius")

7th April 2008, 05:13 PM	#35
Ichneumonwasp Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,665	Originally Posted by The Man Thanks for that clarification Ichneumonwasp, although I am not surprised that both the cited author and I got that association wrong. How about REM sleep, since one might perceive themselves as being awake, would that also be marked by large scale desynchronization or would it tend to be similarly synchronous as the other sleep phases? Desynchronization. It almost, but not quite, looks like the waking state on the EEG.