Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
This PDF file article from Victor Stenger is about 20 years old now, when he was still teaching at the University of Colorado, but still very much worth reading.
STENGER: The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence
that we have little to say about it [little control over it]. The myth of quantum consciousness should take
its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the
fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell
them about the world.
Good article Avagadro. The above is as true now as it ever was.
No, it’s not true and it’s not praiseworthy. The only argument he presents against “quantum consciousness” is actually quite silly and flippant. He says that “quantum phenomena” are only present at a certain range of extremely low temperatures. This assumes a kind of Copenhagen interpretation, which is, as agreed by most people working on foundations of quantum mechanics, incoherent. In fact, quantum mechanics is a fundamental physical theory, and macroscopic physics must somehow emerge from the basic quantum-mechanical description. Thus all phenomena are quantum, regardless of the temperature range of the system in question.
If quantum mechanics really is the fundamental theory, then it must contain the ontology that is required to explain consciousness. It doesn’t matter how many witch-doctors like Deepak Chopra, or false-alarm-sounders like Roger Penrose, have hijacked the field of quantum consciousness. Quantum consciousness is here to stay.
If quantum mechanics really is the fundamental theory, then it must contain the ontology that is required to explain consciousness. It doesn’t matter how many witch-doctors like Deepak Chopra, or false-alarm-sounders like Roger Penrose, have hijacked the field of quantum consciousness. Quantum consciousness is here to stay.
that’s a real slippery slope you’ve put yourself on, boy-o
seems to me you could drop in any old “then it must contain the ontology that is required to explain _________” and be valid. yet, i don’t think valid is the most appropriate word to use there…
I cannot understand how you could object to anything in the paragraph of Stenger’s that I quoted. But do use it as a platform to push your interpretation of QM if you like. I’d be interested to read it.
So you think “any old” theory is just as fundamental a physical theory as quantum mechanics? If not, I fail to see your point.
no that is not what i am saying, because that is not what you are saying. it appears that you are saying because of quantum mechanics you can justify anything. if quantum mechanics justifies quantum consciousness because, in your words, “it must contain the ontology that is required to explain consciousness,” it really looks like you are saying quantum mechanics allows you to justify anything that requires an explanation.
how about god? does quantum mechanics justify god because it ontologically supports what is required to explain the existence of the concept of god? or is consciousness somehow a special topic, in your opinion?
quantum mechanics justifies only consciousness because consciousness is somehow a special circumstance? just seems like you need to clarify your position.
You think the existence of consciousness is in just as much doubt as the existence of God?
my position on that isn’t totally relevant, and misses the point of my disagreement. you have to convince not the choir, but the legions who do believe in a god of some sort, who view every flutter of a butterfly’s wings or tree leaf as some magical divinely inspired and ordained event.
because there are people out there who see god in everything. and they’ll usurp your own rickety logic for their purposes. i’m not sure how you don’t see that possibility.
its helpful to place yourself on the other side of the fence to better see the weaknesses in your own position. at the moment you seem headed for a dead end.
No, it’s not true and it’s not praiseworthy. [...] This assumes a kind of Copenhagen interpretation, which is, as agreed by most people working on foundations of quantum mechanics, incoherent.
Is that so? Others woudl disagree with you. I would firstly like to hear what you understand to be the Copenhagen interpretation and then I would like you to say what you find problematic with it. (I too find it problematic)
JayD: If quantum mechanics really is the fundamental theory, then it must contain the ontology that is required to explain consciousness.
I do not see that this follows, necessarily. Consciousness, as an emergent phenomenon, may have as little to do with the quantum as waves on the ocean. It sounds like you are saying that because everything is made of little things at the quantum level that QM explains everything. It most certainly does not explain everything as far as I can see.
JayD: It doesn’t matter how many witch-doctors like Deepak Chopra, or false-alarm-sounders like Roger Penrose, have hijacked the field of quantum consciousness. Quantum consciousness is here to stay.
It may well be here to stay. Can you tell us what you understand by the term ‘quantum consciousness’, please? Why do you think it explains consciousness?
I’m not interested in discussing God. It’s not relevant.
Consciousness exists. It’s real. Coarse-grainings like “temperature” are not real, but are only useful fictions. Coarse-grainings are the stuff of all physical theories but the most fundamental. Seek the most fundamental physical theory, which is quantum mechanics. That brings us closer than any other physical theory to the ontology that is required for understanding consciousness. Persist with much higher-level theories and you’ll get nowhere (like all past and contemporary cognitive scientists).
I’m not interested in discussing God. It’s not relevant.
at this point in time i’d be the last person to deprive you of the luxury of avoiding whatever topic you believe to be irrelevant. may i merely point out you enjoy such a luxury because you have most likely never been at the pointy end of one of religion’s more persistent unfriendly dogmas. perhaps you are neither female, nor from a third world country, nor a heavily islamic country, nor are you poor or lacking access to education. you may be none of these things and, not being so, it may be easy for you to say god is irrelevant.
perhaps headlines in a newspaper are, to you, just that. i know not how to weigh the wisdom of the path you are choosing. who knows better than you what tools serve to meet your goals? certainly i am not the one to say for you.
JayD - 21 January 2012 07:49 AM
Consciousness exists. It’s real.
oh man. that was so convincing i think i need a moment to catch my breath. hang on a second. you did catch my sarcasm, right?
JayD - 21 January 2012 07:49 AM
Coarse-grainings like “temperature” are not real, but are only useful fictions. Coarse-grainings are the stuff of all physical theories but the most fundamental. Seek the most fundamental physical theory, which is quantum mechanics. That brings us closer than any other physical theory to the ontology that is required for understanding consciousness. Persist with much higher-level theories and you’ll get nowhere (like all past and contemporary cognitive scientists).
brings us closer, you say? really? how close would you say that is? are you measuring in old english or metric?
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 21 January 2012 07:45 AM
Ok, let’s get down to business.
Thought it would never come. Too much foreplay.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 21 January 2012 07:45 AM
Is that so? Others woudl disagree with you. I would firstly like to hear what you understand to be the Copenhagen interpretation and then I would like you to say what you find problematic with it. (I too find it problematic)
Usually understand to refer to the philosophy that there’s a deep, conceptual split between quantum and classical levels of description. Classical beings like us can’t talk about what exists or doesn’t in the quantum world; we can only make measurements which are interpretable on the classical level.
It’s basically gobbledegook, as Einstein rightly insisted. The classical measuring apparatus is made of electrons and atoms, and therefore must be described by quantum mechanics every bit as much as something out of the “quantum world” (whatever that means).
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 21 January 2012 07:45 AM
I do not see that this follows, necessarily. Consciousness, as an emergent phenomenon, may have as little to do with the quantum as waves on the ocean. It sounds like you are saying that because everything is made of little things at the quantum level that QM explains everything. It most certainly does not explain everything as far as I can see.
That’s possible, but I don’t think it’s very likely. Consciousness seems real, not a fiction, and the only “emergent” theories we have are basically fictions. I can’t see how you can get something real from a fiction. That’s why I think we should look to more fundamental physical theories.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 21 January 2012 07:45 AM
It may well be here to stay. Can you tell us what you understand by the term ‘quantum consciousness’, please? Why do you think it explains consciousness?
Oh, I’m not saying we have any such explanation just yet. But we shouldn’t give up trying to find an explanation. It’s too early to write off quantum mechanics.
Destination Immortality - 21 January 2012 08:02 AM
brings us closer, you say? really? how close would you say that is? are you measuring in old english or metric?
However closer is necessary to gain insight into the stuff of consciousness. I won’t go into why, but I think ordinary non-relativistic quantum mechanics with some formal modifications should be adequate for this purpose. If not, we at least stand a better chance with quantum mechanics than, say, artifical intelligence theory or neuroscience.
Destination Immortality - 21 January 2012 08:02 AM
brings us closer, you say? really? how close would you say that is? are you measuring in old english or metric?
However closer is necessary to gain insight into the stuff of consciousness. I won’t go into why, but I think ordinary non-relativistic quantum mechanics with some formal modifications should be adequate for this purpose. If not, we at least stand a better chance with quantum mechanics than, say, artifical intelligence theory or neuroscience.
a better chance? huh, that’s interesting. how much of a better chance? you see where i’m going with this?
probably not. let me explain. my question about old english or metric was a dig at your insistence that everything other than quantum mechanics is only “coarse grain useful fictions.”
its just interesting you take this position. is it quantum mechanics vs everything else in your mind? why is it quantum mechanics is real, and everything else is a coarse grain useful fiction? how do you tell the difference between what’s real and what’s fiction?
more to the point, how do you measure it? how do you prove it? if temperature is a useful fiction involving coarsely grained concepts, then surely you’d agree the concept of numbers is a useful fiction also?
so what is the “real” language of quantum mechanics? is it the words we are using right now? is it the language of mathematics, which uses numbers? is language itself a useful fiction full of coarsely grained concepts? the thing is, i just can’t figure out how you arrived at the conclusion that only quantum mechanics is reality, and moreover how you decided it somehow explains consciousness, is the only way to explain consciousness, or that consciousness is real too.
and how “useful” does fiction have to be before it becomes as good as reality?
RSS Feed
