Talk:Quantum mind/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Talk Page in Need of Clean up - Proposal

This discussion page has been flagged by Wiki for being too long. I see one entry on here from April 3, 2004. I propose that on January 1, 2007, that we (any Wiki editor reading this) be given the okay to begin deleting any entry over a year old to keep this page and discussion fresh. Also, after Jan 1st, any anonymous comment can be sent to the archive. Anyone with a new concern can post a comment again reflecting the current state of science on the issue. Deleting here only moves it to the archive section (click on the history tab and then click on the date you want to revisit to see past talk pages). 5Q5 15:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The AAAI and Stanford will be hosting a symposium on 'Quantum Interaction' in Spring, '07; it seems clear this nascent field is due for an update.

  • Added comment. The main Cleanup issue I see with the article itself is that it lacks a proper referencing system: superscripted numbers linked to the Reference section. This can be accomplished easily and automatically with reference tags. Unfortunately, it may be too late for this article because only the people who added all the loose references know where in the text they refer. I would also point out that the mother article Quantum mechanics is also lacking in properly referenced source material. If you want to study the page code of a heavily referenced article, see what was done at Psychokinesis, a page on which skeptics like me have worked. 5Q5 14:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have learned how to create a talk page archive, have done it successfully. After the Thanksgiving holiday, I will create an Archive 1 of this page. 5Q5 19:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Persephone19To the anon I.P. concerned about the text I removed: please see the bottom of the page.

Does anyone know the origin of the expression warm, wet, noisy. Was it Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness?

I'm pretty sure that it was invented by one of the theories detractors.
  • I think the origin is put by Stuart Hameroff in a lecture of the webcourse "Consciousness at the Millenium - Quantum Approaches to Understanding the Mind", Lecture 9, FEASIBILITY OF MICROSCOPIC QUANTUM MECHANISMS IN THE BRAIN, chapter 3. Is the brain "warm, wet and noisy?", published online 1999, however my check in the internet showed that the original server is not available or the web course was deleted. If someone wants to read the lecture or the whole course I have perfect copy of it, and maybe I can upload it somewhere - for example in CogPrints, because it entered in the public domain. I am recently very busy, so I don't know when I will be able to do that. If somebody has specific questions on Q-mind he might use my Wikipedia user talk page. Currently my editing is on neuroscience topics, and not Q-mind. Danko Georgiev MD 07:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What is widely accepted?

"This view is widely accepted among physicists or neurologists."

What are you claiming here? That microtubules are smaller than cells or that there are many biologists who think quantum efects account for consciousness?

Left out a "not"

Roadrunner 02:01, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't this violate Occam's Razor (the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible)? Baloogan 09:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, then you've got a simpler explanation for it all? linas 03:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ahem

I haven`t read the article but wanna state the obvious: you cannot have it in pseudoscience and protoscience at the same time! So please clean up the article as i figure that is the reason why it is in pseudoscience or vice versa.Slicky 19:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • RESOLVED. I propose this mini discussion section be deleted (archived) by anyone reading this after November 1, 2006 to help clean up this talk page. 5Q5 14:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

NEXT!

Ok, I've done what I can here to expand this topic into an article. but I am now sick of this subject and someone else should carry-on. I'm not dropping the clean-up tag untill there has been some edits by others on the page.

Deletions of 'Quantum Mysticism ' and 'Criticisms'

Large scale deletions of sections of articles are generally preceded by discussion or a justification in comments. If you have issues with these sections please come and talk and we will work something out. DV8 2XL 16:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox and here we try to maintain a neutral point of view Please come and disscuss your issues here. DV8 2XL 17:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm keeping your first comment, it's valid and referenced
    • "The trouble with decoherence, however, is that it leaves us with a picture of the Schrödinger equation evolving smoothly everywhere, except when it doesn't, which is all the time."" Removed as opinion

The "opinion" is due to John Baez, one of the leading authorities on the subject.


    • "This begs the question, however, given that the brain, as a material thing, just is a collection of quantum fields. (See the reference to Dyson below.) If mind is connected to matter, as would seem altogether plausible, and matter is quantum in nature, then it follows as a ready consequence that mental processes are quantum processes. Thus, e.g., Abdus Salam: all chemical binding is electromagnetic in origin, and so are all phenomena of nerve impulses. (See reference below.) If perceptual fields, e.g., are phenomena of nerve impulses, then it would seem to follow that perceptual fields are electromagnetic in origin. Needless to add, perhaps, our most advanced physical theory, quantum electrodynamics (QED) just is the quantum theory of electromagnetic interactions -- like those which govern modern chemistry. (See, e.g., Feynman's QED: The Strange Theory of Light & Matter.)" Please rephrase NPOV

DV8 2XL 17:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for reference

Could somebody please add a reference to the original Froelich paper on biological temperature coherence. I think it was thr Int J Quant Chem but I can't find my reference to it anywhere.

done. pulled it out of Shadows of the Mind GangofOne 11:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed Answers to criticisms

I deleted the rather long edit that attempted to answer a critical passage earlier in the text. It violated any number of WP policies and guidelines (see WP:NOT).

I also pulled the passage that provoked the edit as it too was in violation of NPOV.

Please discuss this here before reverting DV8 2XL 20:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Holonomic brain theory?

What relation does this subject have to Holonomic brain theory? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Verifiability

This article needs to adopt a method for citing sources. Harvard referencing would be easiest, but if this page is trying to be a science article then the footnote system would be better.

"Classical models view consciousness as computation" <-- Here is a place to start. What is a good source to support this statement?
--JWSchmidt 14:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

A bold claim

The article currently says: Human thought, based on the Gödel result, is sound , yet non-algorithmic.

This seems to be the usual unsound leap people make from Gödel's theorem:

  1. Systems like computers can't think of everything. (paraphrase of Gödel)
  2. We can think of everything.
  3. Therefore, the human brain does not act like a computer.

The flaw is in step 2, which is usually glossed over. This kind of reasoning has been argued against by Douglas Hofstadter, by Alan Turing himself, and others.

Am I interpreting the statement right? If so, I intend to remove it as unverifiable. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read the whole passage. The section is making no claims, it is reporting on the foundations of the argument AS STATED BY proponents of quantum mind theory. The refutation of that argument follows in the next paragraph. 70.51.184.193 09:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Molecular biology

What are the functional quantum processes in molecular biology that have indeed been found? Is there a reference? They never came up in my molecular biology course. Could comeone clarify this please because I think it may be incorrect. Jefffire 14:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify your question? Are you asking if there is any evidence that physiological processes (such as signal transmission in the brain) are sensitive to individual quantum events? --JWSchmidt 17:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That line is in the first paragraph of the Introduction and very little information is given. I think that it's perhaps untrue. Jefffire 15:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A problem with one of the links

In the last section about hidden variable theories, the link to one of the authors Peres leads to the page about Shimon Peres, but I think it should lead to a page about Asher Peres (I am not sure), if there is such a page.

  • Fixed, thanks --DV8 2XL 02:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Cleanup...

needed. I deleted "And last, no convincing, reproducible evidence for psychic phenomena has ever been found, despite 150 years of effort which would make this a flimsy basis indeed to support a belief in quantum consciousness" - because this is not an article about psychic phenomena as a basis of mind, and "quantum mind" can hardly have been tested for 150 years since the "quantum" concept was first introduced in physics only 106 years ago, and actual quantum physics only began developing in earnest 84 years ago. - Reaverdrop 22:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also is this statement justified? - "Some experimental evidence seems to indicate quantum non-locality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain function" If a reference can't be found I suggest removal. Jefffire 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a general statement referring to the stated findings of the researchers listed below. Referencing one to the exclusion of the others would have tended to give more weight to that theory over the others and I wanted to avoid that. --DV8 2XL 20:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a rewording in that case, but I can't think of a good replacement without using weasel words. Something like 'Quantum Mind proponents believe that some experimental evidence...etc' perhaps? Jefffire 12:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Changed it to: "Some theories have been subjected to experimental tests and evidence indicating that quantum non-locality is occurring in conscious and subconscious brain functions has been claimed, however these results have yet to gain wide acceptance." How's that? --DV8 2XL 13:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I pulled a lot of non-relivant entries from the ref section. --DV8 2XL 32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious what you consider "non-relevent." I added a reference to work by Murray Gell-Mann on the subject, but you removed it. I'm just a beginner at Wikipedia contributions, but I admit that I'm hesitating to contribute too much work if it just gets arbitrarily deleted. It seems like I'd be wasting my time unless I became an editing zealot, always watching and reverting my work. I don't think you're going to attract many experts (i'm a neurobiologist) if they can't expect at least some justification for having their work edited. I know, it was just one reference, but I'm trying to get a feel for what working on Wikipedia is like, and so far I'm not encouraged. MouseRancher 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry MouseRancher, the topic was bombed by an anon with a huge load of non-relevant entries in this section, if I dropped yours it was by accident. Please place it back in at your earliest convenience. --DV8 2XL 19:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm taking out the 'yet' but otherwise I'm very happy with that. Jefffire 17:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


What is Q-mind? (opinion)

I have seen that the whole article reflects exactly the current status of the idea Q-mind - a total mess, and my opinion on all this can be briefly summarized like that: from centuries there were quacks and charlatans, and since some of the QM results are quite strange at first glance and need good acquaintance with advanced maths, now in the area Q-mind is full with "self-proclaimed scientists" from various fields that write "revolutionary articles". Actually everything about parapsychic evidence, transferred potentials, telepatics, etc. is just "massaging of statistical facts until they fit to support the researcher's expectations" - this was told to me by one of the Hameroff's team, whose name I will not post here. Actually on the Q-mind conferences [I have attented the 2003 year event] is full with quacks, and I feel too sorry for the couple of researchers who were there to present something really interesting. So if someone needs to write a review of what is "Q-mind" as a whole it is impossible task. It stands for collection of ideas some of which are nothing but quackery, some of which are so advanced that you need to be expert in the field to understand them (such as Mavromatos & Nanopoulos string theory modeling of microtubules, all of the papers are peer-reviewed and published, preprints available at ArXiv.org). The recipe to easily understand whether a Q-mind proposal is pseudo-science can be done in this way - check and if the author proposes verification of some non-local influence between two separated humans, then this is quackery. Actually I am one of the few M.D.'s that when I hear the word "subconscious" or "paranormal" get sick. I have passed several advanced course in Psychoanalysis and I can assure you that all of those who work in this field lack any substantial knowledge in neuroscience, and live in their own imaginary created world in which the "subconsciousness of the patient" is "the perverted consciousness of the psychoanalitist itself"! As a final suggestion I think the whole article should be collapsed to a list with original approaches, and a short note that Q-mind as a whole is not a single theory because there is no peer-reviewing, and currently it is quitable cover for quacks. p.s. Somebody created entry about my work, and actually there is described a model developped by Stuart Hameroff et al., that I pursued for a year, but due to negative results I have dropped out. I will be glad that this incorrect entry is deleted. Best, Danko Georgiev MD 02:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Hello I don't know who has created the entry of my work, but obviously he used as reference withdrawn by me paper. The original e- conduction pathway along aromatic aminoacids was proposed by S. Hameroff, A. Nip, M. Porter and J.A. Tuszynski. Conduction pathways in microtubules, biological quantum computation, and consciousness. BioSystems 64, 149-168 (2002). [1]. I have worked on this theory but I have ultimately shown in late 2003 that the e- hopping is impossible in vivo. In late 2003 and early 2004 I have shown however that the C-terminal tubulin tails are ideal candidates for propagating of conformational solitons in interaction with the EM field inside the neuron. See [[2]] and the Biomed Rev 15 review [[3]]. Currently the model is under peer-review and various aspects of it will be published in several independent sources. I will be glad if the person who created the entry about my work deletes the entry, I personally do not want to edit anything connected to Q-mind in Wikipedia, because I will be accused in self-promotion. Danko Georgiev MD 07:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This was the best information that I could find at the time the passage was written. My intention in this article was to provide an overview of the subject and a quick look at some of the theories out there. If I have associated you with a direction that you are no longer working on I beg your pardon. I knew from the begining that this topic would be difficult. This field is so wide open that no matter how fair and neutral a treatment I gave, I was going to rub some folks the wrong way. If you don't feel comfortabe editing the page directly, if you want you can post any changes to my talk page and I will put them in. --DV8 2XL 02:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I have removed your name from the passage. --DV8 2XL 03:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear DV8 2XL, thanks for removing my name, but the passage on Q-solitons is wrong. Actually it is me who proposed the possible solitons as resulting between microtubule and EM field interaction [4]. This is based on the finding by Penfield, and recently used in revolutionary neurosurgical operation by Dobelle, namely when you stimulate the brain cortex with electric field via electrode you elicit vivid experience of some events. One of the subjects in Penfields experiment was woman, and she said that she is hearing a children's laugh. When Penfield tried to explain that he actually let some electric current in her cortex, she answered that this must be a lie because the children's laugh is 'real'. Dobelle used these findings as a background to construct an artificial bionic device [bionic eye = camera] that inputs the visual image direcly to the brain cortex of blind subject, and the blind subject was able to see again [5]. So I have proposed that if the microtubule q-mind hypothesis is right then the EM field of the neuron must input the sensory information into specific tubulin states. The ferroelectric model does not work, because no solitons can occur in vivo [the needed electric field is of the order above 1 000 000 V/m]. That is why I have worked on the biophysics of the tubulin tails that project from the microtubule, and I have shown that the energy for the tail motion is quite low, and indeed the termal noise is sufficient to cause tail vibration in a restricted volume termed "thermal cone". When electric field is applied a collective tail ordering is possible. What about the conduction pathway hypothesis of hopping e- although it is biological absurd, the main idea is that e- hopping is not sensitive to external EM field, due to actin gelation, this is the meachanism that in Orch OR is supposed to "insulate" microtubules from decoherence. Also, the tubulin tails in the Orch OR hypothesis repell nearby ions and form a Debye layer that according to Tuszynski and Hameroff should screen external EM fields. This second idea is result of wrong application of the Debye-Hueckel (DH) theory for electrolytes, and in my recent work I was able to show that in vivo DH approximation breaks down i.e. is mathematically not valid.

As a summary interaction between microtubules and local EM field is advocated by me in collaboration with prof. James F. Glazebrook, yet it is not part of the Hameroff's model. Why I am interested in this modelling is because of the Penfield's and Dobelle's work as explained above. Why Hameroff needs to insulate the interaction of the microtubule with nearby ions [i.e. external for the MT electric field] is to avoid decoherence for 25 milliseconds. I do not need to avoid decoherence because in my model the microtubule interacts with already coherent EM soliton pulses in the timescale of 15 picoseconds. Actually this is exactly the dinamyc timescale of protein catalysis, and in Hameroff's model it is quite bizzare to have a whole bunch of cellular protein catalysing various reactions for 10-15 picoseconds, while the microtubule itself is "frozen is superposition" for 25 milliseconds in a "long thought process".

I hope this will help you to see that there is conceptual difference between the quantum soliton model and Hameroff's Orch OR. Hameroff personally responded that Tegmark's calculations on decoherence do not apply for Orch OR, because in Orch OR no solitons are taken into consideration. Please repair the entry, or delete it.Danko Georgiev MD 05:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Doctor: given the changes you are asking for, it would be better if you rewrote the passage yourself. I understand your consern that you would be accused of a POV edit, but I think in this case your input is warrented. Please try and keep the passage about the same lenght; this is all I ask. If you are still unwilling, then I will get to it over the next week, or if I cannot I will remove it. --DV8 2XL 15:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear DV8 2XL, I do not want to edit Q-mind article, and one of the reasons is that it is now a shelter for pseudo-scientists, mysticists, parapsychologists, etc. I am not interested in editing this entry. My current aim is publishing in peer-reviewed journals of some of the basic ideas in the quantum approach that are really scientifically grounded. For example you cannot have a modern quantum physics, and continue to study the brain with Newtonian approaches. After all neuroscince has reached the nano-level where the bizzare quantum effects start to be relevant - see Scrutton and Sutcliffe experimentally verified phenomenon of vibrationally assisted quantum tunelling in enzyme catalysis [6] [7] [8] [9]

Sorry again for my unwillingness to contribute to the main article. My suggestion is you and other editors to make this article a guide towards original models, and this is maybe the best that can be done. Hameroff and Penrose Orch OR, Nanopoulos-Mavromatos stringy approach, Jibu-Yasue QBD,Stapp's model, etc. are all original work that has both some strong and some weak features. Of course the possible weakness of some specific model does not say anything for the whole Q-mind topic. Currently Q-mind is shelter for pseudo-scientists, so I will try to keep my name aside from the story. Danko Georgiev MD 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reticence Doctor, and I respect it. It's true that this field of inquiry has more than its fair share of montebanks, charlatans and the deluded, which is unfortunate for the handful of legitimate researchers who are trying to make progress. I will try to make some order here hopefuly with some other interested editors like Jefffire and others. --DV8 2XL 03:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

formal references arrangement

There are a lot of mentions of people in the field and their work within the article, but without any footnotes attached that lead to the published work itself. Some of the names are links to stubs or articles, some of which have scientific references, but it seems like a link to at least one primary source article per topic would be worthwhile, no?

Perhaps the article would benefit from a more formal set of reference annotations, e.g. numbered footnote references in the article pointing to outside-linked books and published articles in a "Footnotes" section below. Preferably something based on what's at the Wikipedia:Citing_sources , Wikipedia:Footnotes, and Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style pages. I admit that I'm not a huge fan of the Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Citations_of_generic_sources templates, but they could always be edited in once the basic references in proper format are in place.

The current References section seems to be missing nearly all of the relevent scientific articles published on the subject recently, and I could help a bit with that.

If they exist, ISBN for books, and DOI and/or PMID links for scientific articles really should be added to the footnotes and references, so that people can easily follow-up for greater detail.

If any of this sounds worthwhile, I could start that ball rolling, but I await some comments here first, please.

Here you are:

Chris C. King [10]

Stuart Hameroff & Roger Penrose [11]

Henry Stapp [12]

unsigned overwrite of above link by User:207.69.137.35 : http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9808&L=quantum-mind&P=R27075 Stapp and Brain Flanagan in converstion. Restored by GangofOne 22:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nick E. Mavromatos & Dimitri Nanopoulos [13]

these are the works that I think deserve to be considered as something like scientific basis of Q-mind, although there are some problems that are subject to repairment. All other guys are self-proclaimed charlatans* (I will not list names, because I don't want to be blocked from Wikipedia). My own work is based on the work of the quoted researchers above, and I think that most important papers that can provide "inspiration" for further work is prof. Chris C. King's work, who discusses the Q-mind in evolutionary aspect - how more and more complex biomolecules evolve in order to result in what we call "human mind". Danko Georgiev MD 03:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair warning to all you soi-disant mountebanks out there. Footnote and url inserted by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.171.192 (talk • contribs) .

Please to not edit other's comments. GangofOne 22:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not editorialize on mine.

Of special interest are the author's explorations of psilocybin mushrooms and such related topics as:

  • The Renewal Sowing the Spores of Immortality
  • Consummating the Ultimate Sacramental Homecoming
  • Maria Sabina and the Sacred Mushroom The transmission of a Tradition
  • Twelve Sacred Plants The Tree of Life of the Psychic Plants
  • The Sacrament of the Living Eucharist
  • The Heritage of Dionysus Celebrating the Sacrament at Eleusis

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.35 (talk • contribs)

It's of special interest to YOU, but what does it have to do with the topic? GangofOne 22:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


What, indeed

What do this ext. links have to do wth the topic?

--GangofOne 23:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This topic draws this sort of cruft all the time. Don't ask, be WP:BOLD and flush them away.--DV8 2XL 23:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the factual accuracy and neutrality of this article

It contains possibly original research. Aether and Quantum mechanic? Aether is a mechanical theory Quantum mechanic is not. Here is one example of a thing that should be modified. Fad (ix) 18:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is a list of the various quantum theories of mind. Some are current some are historical. It is neutral to the extent that it doesn't push one theory over the others, and provides links out to the individual entries here at Wikipedia, and in the reference section, to others off site. None of it is OR. --DV8 2XL 19:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, but how Aether could be said to be an earlier form, when it is mechanical physic model while Quantum mechanic is not? Fad (ix) 19:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is the passage in question:

:A relation between consciousness and quantum effects has been pondered for nearly a century, and even before that Newton himself had proposed that vibrations of the aether might be excited by, and in turn, excite the brain. This speculation forms the conceptual foundation for the modern study of quantum consciousness.

Please note the bold ed section - this is the first time that the general concept of thought was linked to an idea that was the precursor to quantum physics. The passage was placed for historical completeness. --DV8 2XL 19:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How is aether theory a precursor of Quantum mechanic, aether is a classical mechanic theory, quantum mechanic is probabilistic, both contradict eachother and that there is any continuity between both is just plain POV. There are many other such words, like the claim that the role of consciousness is unknown in the universe. This suggest that it actually has a role in the universe and that we don't know of. I have no problem with the subject, to the contrary I find it fascinating, but the current state of the article sounds like a throwing of idea's and tainted with suggestive wordings. Fad (ix) 19:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
To see the link between the two theories see: Michelson–Morley experiment
OK, the articles presentation is less than ideal. The trouble is that this whole field is really little more than speculation at this point; has a number of conflicting ideas; and attracts squads of cranks. Trying to run this gauntlet has not been easy (I'm the primary editor)and things have gotten hot here occasionally getting to the point of editors threatening to sue. Fact is this topic cannot keep NPOV and not piss someone off, someplace in the article. Where we are right now is everyone a little bit unhappy. It's been relatively stable for a while now, but if you want to wade in I can't stop you. Do know that you will be getting into a fight, and it won't be with me. Good luck. --19:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Aether has nothing to do with quantum mechanics!

I don't know who is this clever historician, but Newton has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics developped in the 20th century. Please don't enter bul..s.t in Wikipedia if you are not competent. Danko Georgiev MD 10:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is there for historical completeness and is referenced. --DV8 2XL 10:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
What kind of historical completeness ??? This is a new history or what?? Danko Georgiev MD 11:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Newtons ideas on aether have nothing to do with quantum dynamics and modern belief in the aether. Jefffire 10:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I give up. Butcher the damned page up to suit your POV's I give up --DV8 2XL 10:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Or... you could try verifying your additions from reliable sources. Jefffire 10:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? This page is a list of follies. I am sick of people taking their pet beefs about certain "theories" out on the entries here. I all of you are too stupid to see an overview page when they are looking at one I'm not going to spoon feed you. The Newton story is referenced somewhere in the mess that the reference section has become as everyone has used it for a dump. I'm not going to dig it out because I don't care anymore to waste my time defending content on this page. Good luck. --DV8 2XL 10:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear DV8 2XL, I am creating some articles concerning molecular neuroscience whose links you can find on my talk page. Also I do not consciously participate in the Q-mind article creation. Yet, there are some obvious childish errors, that I allowed myself to delete. One of these things is the Newton and Quantum Mechanics. This is the most unserious thing that I have ever heard. It is Einstein who created relativity disproving Newton's model, and who later suggested the idea of light quantum, which actually is the discovery that won him the Nobel Prize. Also please do not revert the completely wrong passage of quantum solitons, I have merged it with Mavromatos 2002 QED model, where there are really proposed quantum solitons. But to say that in the paper of Hameroff, Tuszynski et al. is presented idea of quantum solitons is ABSURD!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE read carefully the paper [14] and you will see that there is not such word as "quantum soliton" and there is no suggestion of sensitivity to external electric field - and it is exactly the opposite. Please do not revert deletion of this wrong text, before presenting argument WHERE you have read in the paper something that says the absurd text presented in the wiki article on Q-mind. Danko Georgiev MD 11:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way - the article needs clean up, and that is what I helped in. I don't mind that the editors represent the funny ideas of Q-mind, but be objective and do not attribute words to people who never said them Danko Georgiev MD 11:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Do what ever you want Danko I don't give a damn anymore. Others will come and fight and the article will be in shreds in no time. I've been protecting content from those who would have this article only deal with 'THE ONE TRUE PATH TO A QM THEORY' for too long. The insults and threats of lawsuits, the cranks and kooks, and the usual drizzle of vandals has got to me. This article can go to hell. --DV8 2XL 11:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear DV8 2XL, calm down. As you see in the discussion section I have provided links to various web sites and the home pages of original researchers who deserve to be mentioned in the article, but I have not created anything in the article myself. Also I have done cosmetic changes only in the references, and I don't understand the fact why you are annoyed that I have deleted some obvious nonsense. I came here just from curiosity to see how this article evolves, and do not intend to edit it in the future. Continue your guarding function, but please consider that there is disclaimer for clean-up and I don't see how you help in that. :-) Danko Georgiev MD 11:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Danko, you have no grasp of English idiom if you think the passage on Newton has anything to do with Quantum Mechanics or claiming that it has anything to do with aether theory - or did you even bother to read it? You want to drop in time to time and piss in the article and then magnanimously suggest I should "continue your guarding function" Gee, thanks. And guess what? Everything here is obvious nonsense. Not one bit of it goes beyond speculation at best overactive imagination at worse. I'm outa here. --DV8 2XL 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear DV8 2XL, if you think that you can offend me personally you are dead wrong. What is speculation, and what is imagination and what is nonsense will be find out soon or later. I think that the Q-mind article is bad too, so it needs clean-up. It is good when person has clear position on a subject, but do not overestimate your knowledge of what science is, because it might be too narrow-viewed after all. Best, Danko Georgiev MD 04:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Eccles and synapses

I don't mind that it is not mentioned the Eccles is Nobel laureate, but the original entry was speaking about Eccles as some kind of "quack" who "speculates". His model is fully developped biophysical theory and one can read the 1992 article in PNAS if is enough competent in QM. Also the Nobel Prize is relevant in the case because Eccles took it exactly for his breaktroughs in studying the synapse and its function. So, if one claims that Eccles' work on synapse physiology is speculation is midly said unserious. Danko Georgiev MD 11:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bose-Einstein condensates

Apparently, it sounds a joke that "the British psychiatrist Ian Marshall" shall link to the footballer of the same name. Both may be actually the same person. Yet some clarification would help clear up either doubt or show up more "coherence". --kypark 13:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If QM Mind applied then consciousness would appear to be epiphenomenal

Who wrote this??? He is apparently ignorant in everything that Q-Mind suggests. It is the MIND (consciousness) that is causally effective - in some scenarios it chooses the preferred basis, in others the MIND selects one of many possibilities, but to say that it is epiphenomenal is very stupid. This is exactly to what the neural net theory will lead since all the function is performed by the neurons, and the mind is not causal "emergent phenomenon". Please someone to correct this wrong comment. At least the author should know that one of the basic features of Q-mind is that the consciousness is always causal. Danko Georgiev MD 10:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

An explanation

Wow! You guys sure delete extremely fast any civil discussion you don't agree with even if its a good effort!! A true scientific mind doesn't do this and you're just following in lockstep with the growing control freakisness denying the rest of us true freedom of speech. The freedom here is a mere illusion and I admit you fooled me well. You took out in moments a very valuable insight into the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.101.236.168 (talk • contribs)

You say "You guys...". Why do you use the plural? --GangofOne 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following text yesterday evening with the edit summary "removed well-written and articulate piece of uncited original research":

Quantum anomalies alone will not produce active conciousness, but like zero-point energy simply provide a substrate for the existance of the probability of structure as found in the wave-particle duality. For example quantum tunneling effects between oranelles and synapses would simply cancel each other out over extremely short time intervals. These are some of the short time, short length effects that provide the unguided statistical ether upon which allows a foundation for organic structure. It is the organization of molecular units and larger that creates a constantly evolving neural connectivity network upon which is overlayed a large grouping of neurochemically generated electromagnetic wave interference patterns that creates conciousness. These also provide the harmonic energy feedback to the substrate to motor it, and mold it in adaptive fashion in a push-pull dynamic. Quantum conciousness is an over-reaching term that implies grand hopes for what is really bread and butter neurobiology formed on several different but interweaving classical interactive levels. The one important thing about the 3-dimensional brain geometry with so many areas of different cellular densities and varying nutritional glia and incoming hormones and neurotransmitters etc. is the added degrees of freedom in the wave interference patterns. This will create many exquisitely complex wave forms providing so much information that our brain's ability to filter so much activation information is absolutely key to our survival and over time as we evolve so will our perception of conciousness. Some would say even in one lifetime a person's conciousness can be changed dramatically. So over generations much can be expected.

If 209.101.236.168 would like to explain why they think it should be included, they may do so here (why not get a user account, 209.101.236.168?).

You see, while certainly you were indulging in civil discussion and make some interesting points, the place for discussion is here on the talk page of the article: this isn't a message board. Also, many of the points made in the above paragraph may be factually disputed, and there are no citations to back any of the points up. The text I removed also promotes a particular point of view on quantum mechanics, consciousness, and the problem of quantum mind. If you want to include something in this article, 209.101.236.168, and please do not let me dissuade you from doing so, let's talk about it here, first, so that you understand exactly what is expected from an encyclopaedia article, particularly on an issue as contentious as this. Byrgenwulf 07:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Updates Made to Header

I have edited the topmost text on the page to more accurately reflect what people who come to the Quantum Mind hypothesis believe in, and why they come to it. First and foremost, any encyclopedic reference must clearly state the premise of the topic matter for each Topic or entry. If we fail to do this with Wikipedia, we will have done others a disservice by creating a useless document. In my own writing, I am clearly on the wave-like team, rather than being a champion of the particle-like aspect in all things having to do with consciousness, but in my Wiki editing I hope to accurately reflect the consensus, as it pertains to each topic I edit. I want to be objective, and I want to give the edge to real Science and accepted fact, but with a topic like quantum consciusness we must at least present what it is clearly, and why its adherents believe as they do. If we can do that from a Neutral Point Of View, we have carried out our mandate in a satisfying way. If we can't be informative, on the other hand, Wikipedia serves no purpose. JonathanD 20:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Quantum Mind Article

I am sorry to add to the rather heated debate on this article, but feel it should not be left in its present form.

My first comment refers to para. 3 of the introduction, where the main line of argument is stated to be, 'human thought is said to be sound, yet non-algorithmic.'

This idea appears to spring from Roger Penrose's first book 'The Emperor's New Mind. It is therefore relavant to Penrose but does not appear to have been advanced by the other exponents of QM.

The article and the subsequent discussion comment are also too sweeping with regard to what Penrose said. He claimed that the Godel theorem meant that humans were capable of non-algorithmic judgments. He did not claim that all human thoughts were non-algorithmic.

My main problem, however, is with the criticisms section. Criticism one is fair enough so far as it goes in pointing out the liklehood of very rapid decoherence in the brain. However, it seems that a neutral article, should mention that Hameroff has suggested ways in which the microtubules could be screened and Danko Georgiev has offered an alternative model in this discussion page.

The second para of criticism states the increasingly prevalent view in modern physics that decoherence takes place by itself without the need for the conscious observer and equipment of the traditional Copenhagen view. This may be a problem for some QM ideas, such as Henry Stapp's, which appears to require a conscious observer in the brain, but it is not a criticism of QM as a whole. Penrose in particular is very critical of Copenhagen, and Orch OR proposes a different view of the wave function collapse for physics in general, quite apart from consciousness theory.

The third section of criticism suffers from the assumption that QM models have to drive the structure of neuron assemblies. The Hameroff model, at least appears to look at the microtubules and condensates as a partly parallel system communicating via gap junctions. Yasue also appears to have an over arching model.

The sentence about epiphenomenism should be a fourth section as it doesn't really follow from the other. The idea has more often been tied to more conventional theories of consciousness. There are arguments the whole idea, which I won't go into here. However if QM did produce it doesn't constitute a criticism as such.

I don't understand the reason for the final 'Consciousness causes collapse' section, as this has been essentially dismissed by the second section of criticism relative to decoherence. Persephone19 19.56 6 October 2006 (UTC)

corrected section header - this discussion JonathanD 06:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

Discussion here --Awesome 03:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

copyright violation?

This edit seems to have added text that is also at http://www.thymos.com/tat/consc3.html
--JWSchmidt 01:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

One option is to return to this version, create a numbered reference list and then re-build the article using only information that can be associated with verifiable sources. Also, I think an article such as this needs to place an emphasis on the use of peer-reviewed sources. The "quantum mind" field has seen many speculative publications that if mentioned in an encyclopedia should be clearly identified as non-peer reviewed and speculative. --JWSchmidt 02:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Contradiction

This refers to the material than can be found via the contradiction note. The definition of a scientific theory as opposed to pseudoscience or metaphysics appears to be that the theory can be falsified by experiment or observation. Penrose/Hameroff have suggested at least 19 ways of testing or falsifying their theory. In principle, it should be possible to show that Bose-Einstein condensates do not exist in the brain, in which case it's back to the drawing board for Penrose and Hameroff. But at least it's not pseudoscience. Persephone19 16:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Bose-Einstein condensate says that a Bose-Einstein condensate exists at low temperatures. How can a Bose-Einstein condensate exist in a brain? --JWSchmidt 19:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Condensates in the brain

Hameroff suggests that the microtubules could be screened by the ordering of water and actin near their outer surface.The condensates are suggested to exist in the hollow core of the microtubules. Experiments are supposed to have artificially induced quantum coherence in the brain for periods of up to 25ms, which is interesting in relation to the so-called 40Hz thalamus-cortex oscillation seen as a likley correlate of consciousness by more conventional players such as Crick and Koch. 80.194.237.97 10:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology: I wasn't signed in. The immediate above is. Persephone19 10:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Experiments are supposed to have artificially induced quantum coherence in the brain for periods of up to 25ms" <-- This is our chance to start a numbered reference list for the article. Please cite a peer-reviewed source for this scientific claim. --JWSchmidt 13:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
"The discussion about this is on Hammeroff's web site, www.quantumconsciousness.org, under the archive for the former e-mail discussion group for October 2000. The experiments referred done by WS Warren and others at Princeton and Pennsylvania, mainly in the 1990s, were to do with brain scanning rather than consciousness as such. They may not involve entanglement and definitely don't involve the microtubules, but they were seen as significant in demonstrating the possibility of coherence over extended time in the brain. The references given by Hammeroff are as follows:

Generation of impossible cross peaks. (1993) Richter, Lee, Warren, He Q Science 262: 2005-2009 Imaging with intermolecular quantum coherence (1995) Richter, Lee, Warren, He Q Science 267: 654-657 Homogeneous NMR Spectra (1996) Vathyam, Lee, Warren (1996) Science 272: 92-96 Image contrast enhancement and zero quantum coherences (1998) Warren et al, Science 281: 247-251 Intermolecular zero-quantum coherence imaging in the human brain (2000), Rizi et al, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 43: 627-632 Persephone19 13:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • What can be cited as a good source that explains the link between quantum coherence in the human brain and brain function? --JWSchmidt 15:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"The main description of the idea appears to be Hameroff's book, Ultimate Computing, Elsevier Science Publishers (1987) ISBN 0 444 70283 0 but can be downloaded free from www.quantumconsciousness.org. There is a long list of references and bibliography. The ones most into coherence in living tissue are probably groups of papers by both E. Del Guidice and H. Frohlich. In addition, James Donald on www.eff.org has an article mainly on the problems of perception and quick decision making relative to classical as opposed to quantum computing. Daniel Dennett has an essay, the Frame Problem of AI in his book Brainchildren, which describes essentially the same problem. Persephone19 20:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that we start with a single peer-reviewed article that explains how quantum coherence plays a role in brain function. --JWSchmidt 05:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
"I doubt that such an article exists. Hameroff was preceded by H. Frohlich and E. Del Guidice. The latter with others has an article in 'Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 24: pp199-210, 2005. He argues that classical physics has a problem with the second law of thermodynamics in describing living matter, and he argues for a description using Quantum ElectroDynamics. He also describes how he thinks water would form into ordered layers along a protein chain. This appears relevant to the suggested shielding of microtubules. The article can be obtained from www.taylorandfrancis.metapress.com, although unfortunately there is a payment for this. Persephone19 20:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Temp. page needs merging, somehow

No clue why, but someone created a temporary page for this topic, for which the article already exists. If anything is salvageable from here, it needs merging into this article from those who actually understand the content. --Czj 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)