Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum consciousness and ion channels

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jreferee t/c 06:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum consciousness and ion channels

Quantum consciousness and ion channels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article reads like a research paper, possibly copied from somewhere. Delete. (Contested proposed deletion.) - Mike Rosoft 11:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless sourced. If someone sources it, then it needs a rewrite. ILovePlankton^(L—s) 12:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because of our policy, Wikipedia:No original research. Knowing something about quantum theory and ion channels, I can tell you that there is no well-established connection between the two. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No one's claiming that there is a well established connection. The article is at some pains to distinguish between conventional/experimentally based neuroscience and a hypothesis re: coherence in the ion channels that Bernroider et al felt justified in making on the back of these. Persephone19 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as OR. Article is sourced now, but appears to be an original synthesis from primary sources. eaolson 15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidance on original synthesis is fairly clear. Source A and Source B should not be stuck together to produce C which is an original synthesis. This has not happened in this case. The main sources are Bernroider and Sisir. The next layer of sources refer to the ion channel studies and also various works on quantum computing. They are all in Bernroider/Sisir's reference list and it is they who have synthesised these works into a hypothesis about quantum coherence in the ion channels. Other references merely back up conventional material as with Dennett and Crick and three standard text books, while Tegmark is there in the interests of neutrality. You can look at the Bernroider material to see that it isn't copied, their stuffs much more complex.

Its more difficult to know what to do about the claim that it reads like a research article. I'd be quite happy to redraft in another style but I'm not sure what to aim for. Clearly the fairly difficult nature of the material, the need for referencing and the requirement to keep reminding people of what the opposing views are create a lot of constraints on style. Persephone19 16:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per above, OR. • Lawrence Cohen 17:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The staggering bad faith shown by those claiming that this is original research is astounding. The article desperately needs to be wikified and copy edited, but the claims that this is original research or unsourced are completely and totally ignorant. Read the article (for some, this may be the first time); Look at the numbers (sometimes they're ranges of numbers) that appear in parentheses in the article; a single number is a single reference, multiple numbers separated by a hyphen are pointing to many different references. Look at the References section at the bottom of the article, where you'll find the references, conveniently numbered, that correspond to the references cited in the article. For the benefit of those who are of the rather large school of thought that believes that anything you haven't head of is "pseudoscience", take a gander at a Google News Archive search on "quantum consciousness" which finds a few dozen sources from newspapers nationwide. There are far many more articles, for the layperson and in scholarly publications, and dozens of books published on the subject. Alansohn 20:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• deletemerge (changed opinion see below) The article rests on the claim made in the first sentence, (reads in part "recent proposals from a number of scientists(26-31)" which are supported by references 26 to 31 (listed below), all "papers" by Gustav Bernroider. None of these papers have ever been cited in the ISI World of Science, none of the titles generate a single hit in the ISI World of Science title search, similarly a WoS search of "Quantum consciousness" AND "ion channel" in the topics generates zero hits. The journals "Forma" and "Neuroquantology" are webjournals not indexed by the ISI (but have Gustav Bernroider on the editorial board. I note that the journal Forma (references 27 & 31) is not peer reviewed per se, but papers are judged by members of the editorial board, "many of whom are engaged in research fields far from the topics of the submitted papers"(!?)), and I'm reluctant to treat them as primary peer-reviewed literature without knowing more about the journals (I note that many of the statements in reference 27 are italiziced for emphasis and end with exclamation points e.g. "Ion permeation is a quantum-chemical process! the same difference as predicted by the present dimensional analysis between the quantum scale and the action order behind spiking!", "the same difference as predicted by the present dimensional analysis between the quantum scale and the action order behind spiking!" which is highly unusual for scholarly publications.
  

References 26 & 28 are conference proceedings. Correct pages for 26 is Vol. 5841:205-214, the term "quantum conscience" appears nowhere in the full text of reference 26, or in the full text of 27. Reference 29 is not 2:pp.163-8, as the article claims, it is 1:163-8 (and the work "experience" is spelled correctly in the journal). My university does not have access to this journal (a bit unusual) so I know nothing about it's contents, but note that google scholar says it's been cited a mere three times (once by Bernroider). The most prestigious looking journal reference to buttress the introductory sentence is "Dimensional analysis of neurophysical processes" Physical Review E,61:4194 (only cited once, by Benroider himself, according to Google Scholar), but the reference must be wrong, since another article is at that location (hint: see reference #37) and a search of Physical Review E for either the title given, or the name "Bernroider" generates no hits.

26) Bernroider,G.& Roy,S.(2005) - Quantum entanglement of K+ ions, multiple channel states and the role of noise in the brain - SPIE (International Society for Optical Engineering) Vol. 5841

27) Bernroider,G.& Roy,S.(2004) - Quantum-classical correspondence in the brain: scaling, action distances and predictability behind neural signals - Forma,19,pp.55-68

28) Bernroider,G.& Summhammer,J.(2007) - The role of quantum cooperativity in neural signaling - Quantum Mind 2007: Conference abstracts

29) Bernroider,G.(2003)- Quantum neurodynamics and the relationship to conscious expereince - Neuroquantology,2:pp.163-8

30) Bernroider,G.(2000) - Dimensional analysis of neurophysical processes - Physical Review E,61,pp.4194

31) Bernroider,G.et al (1996) - Neural phase time coding from the view of the electrodynamic pertubation problem - Forma,11, pp.141-159 references

In summary, I can find no evidence that this a notable theory, rather this seems clearly a WP:FRINGE theory using wikipedia as a soapbox. Pete.Hurd 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per Pete.Hurd. At best this seems to be the viewpoint of a tiny minority, and as such it is not notable enough for wikipedia. Tengfred 11:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pete.Hurd. Exceptionally committed comment! Eusebeus 13:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I reply mainly to Peter Hurd on a few points. The other scientists referred to at the begining of the article are Bernroider's collaborators, Sisir Roy and Johann Summhammer, who are in the references and also Menas Kafatos.

You are right about the Physical Review reference. It was listed next to Tegmark's Physical Review reference in Bernroider's reference list and I got it down incorrectly. I will alter this in a moment.

As a general comment on your analysis of the references, I think we should take account of 'Wikipedia Verifiability -guidance on sources. As one would expect peer-reviewed journals top the list but they are not the only sources suggested. Books from university presses, university level text books and academic publications other than those that are peer reviewed are also 'highly valued'. With respect to this Bernroider is at the Neurodynamics & Neurosignalling Unit, University of Salzburg and Sirir Roy at the Indian Statistical Institute.

'Using a Wikipedia as a soapbox' is a reference to neutrality. Any reading of the article will demonstrate that it clearly emphasises (with references) that Bernroider's is not a mainstream view and along with the reference to Tegmark it highlights decoherence at a particular problem to quantum consciousness theories,and indicated the abscence of any experimental evidence that Bernroider's proposals surmount the decoherence objection 82.36.240.102 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the above should be signed. Persephone19 16:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Tengfred, I would point out that Wikipedia has for some time had a Quantum Mind article, as well as articles on related theories notably Orch OR, quantum brain dynamics and the ideas of David Bohm. Ion channels is put forward as an addition to these long established articles. I don't think its controversial to say that Bernroider's model is sufficiently different from the others, and those from one another to justify separate articles. As it stands Bernroider's material contains much less blue sky speculation than those quoted above. Persephone19 16:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced, it is a fringe theory that probably passes WP:FRINGE. But the article is stuffed with twinkie references (it's still not clear to me how many of refs 26-31 actually support the first sentence, many are clearly parenthetical to the point) and looks to me to have COI / balance issues on top of the lack of wikilinking etc. Some of the references support the material, while other seem to be essentially WP:SYN. Other references merely document trivial statements (e.g. references 5, 6, & 7) and seem intended to puff up the number of references -which impresses some AfD !voters- and ought to be simply replaced by wikilinking to articles such as ion channel and action potential. I support merging Quantum brain dynamics and Quantum consciousness and ion channels into Quantum mind as long as the material in this article is trimmed of excess and off-point references. I think that'll make Quantum mind into a better article as well, all three articles are short, and will make more sense if presented together for comparison and contrast purposes. (changing my !vote above) Pete.Hurd 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that expansion of Quantum Mind, may be the best answer. It's a daunting prospect. Forgetting Bernrroider, there are atleat four main approach, QBD, Stapp, Orch OR and Bohm's implicate order. Separately, it may be necessary to say something about the whole decoherence argument and something about quantum computing. Also the Quantum Mind discussion page does not suggest a great deal of consensus. However, I did say on their page that I might try to add something. Persephone19 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete as WP:SYNTH, but not as WP:OR, so should not be salted, and terribly in need of an expert's attention. The cite list needs to be [[WP:V|verified as well. Bearian'sBooties 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this synthesis discussion higher up on the page. The article is about one set of ideas. It is the authors of those ideas who have called on the support of other peer reviewed experimentation. The article is not very long. If you think you have an example where the editor has synthesised two third parties give the relevant examples and the article will be altered. Persephone19 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A hoax or non-notable pseudoscience. This article cites some good scientific papers about ion channels, but they have nothing to do with "Quantum consciousness". BTW, this article does not really explain what "Quantum consciousness" is.Biophys 00:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Refer to the University of Salzburg site to see that this is based on genuine material. I've just added the link for that. As for other some other quantum consciousness theories the widely touted pseudoscience label is incorrect. It is perfectly feasible to falsify the whole thing by demonstrating the abscence or at least non-detectability of quantum coherence in the brain. The normal definition of pseudoscience is that it is incapable of being falsified, i.e. 'the Face on Mars was put there by aliens.' But, yes, a para. defining quantum consciousness might be useful. Persephone19 05:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Quantum consciousness sounds like the thoughs proposed by Roger Penrose in his book The Emperor's New Mind. If that is what the article is about, then it's certainly not OR Rune X2 15:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. Perhaps there is such thing as "Quantum consciousness" (aricle does not explain what it is), but it has nothing to do with ion channels.Biophys 18:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.