Talk:Quantum mind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Archive

Archives
Archive 1 Nov 27, 2006

Contents

[edit] Topics

The whole thing should be tossed out. This entry used to be pretty good, but is now best regarded (at the risk of being indelicate) as a load of shit.

==

[edit] Clairsentience Article

hi i am putting together an article on clairsentience , which seems to have fallen under the control of the parapsychology department , the difficulty being that they dont seem to understand the philosophical context which must be discussed to even begin talking about this issue . they talk about objectivity and neutrality , but as you and others have noted , there is no such thing and in fact some quite narrtow minded prejudices are being expressed across wikpedia on a wide range of subjects . Thesource42 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

if wikpedia is going to have articles on people such as terence mckenna , robert anton wilson , barbara brennan , rupert sheldrake , ken wilbur etc then contibuters to these articles must be allowed to express some of the flavour and philosophy of these pioneering thinkers . knowledge if it is truly about exploration , discovery and curiosity should not be kept fozen stiff like a dead branch if it is to flourish . the rational yang is no good out of balance without the intuitive mystery and creative imagination of the yin . if psychadelic mushrooms are to be covered for example then why is the pre eminent scholar and ethnobotanist terence mckenna not referenced here. Thesource42 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

also , if someone with a progressive aproach such as rupert sheldrake given a page yet the quality and flavour of it is hacked at by vultures of dumb blind intent while elsewhere sheldrake is not considered a valid scientific source for reference by miopic wikpedians . the pedantry , rampant here where every tick and whistle is used as an escuse to hack at the body and spirit of large numgers of progressive articles across the site . it seems the closed minds here have not understood the true nature and spirit of knowledge which is a living flowing river , a living book , ever changing , always evolving . wasnt it just yesterday when " scientists told us that extra tererstrial intelligences were impossible , and didnt they keep it kina quite when they all changed their minds . hasnt the flat earth society always been this way . they starve wikpedia of the oxygen of creativity , imagination , joy , mystery .... it is rational yang out balance , which my friend is a cold dead thing with his consort , lady yin and her deep mysteries and intuition .Thesource42 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

if your going to have a page on basrbara brennan or clairsentience then the philosophical issues must be allowed to breath and live without the bigots of empirical science hacking into the living branch.

if you could help me get my article into shape , specifically formating issues , it is posted on my user page for now . my main concern is that wiki formats are being abused and badly interpreted in order to vandalise to body and flavour of articles in wikpedia generally , especially ones who are discussing ideas at the forefront of eploration with regards to the object in hyperspace we are coming towards . i have referenced david bohm , lylle watson , rupert sheldrake , barbara brennan , ken wilbur , terence mckenna and robert anton wilson for this perpose , because it is the only way to establish a context for even the existence of clairsentience as an object. as i say in my article , implicit within nthe word itself is a higher dimensional sense world and higher tuned senses with which to aprehend it , therefore i have had to provide a background for understanding an alternative mechanism for both this unusual transmission of information and the existence of a more broadly defined holographic universe .Thesource42 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

to bring a way of understanding the arrival in humanity of these new phenomena i have referenced ken wilber with regards to emergence and from pop culture , the x men and diana troy from star trk next generation to express the flavour of the idea of emerging newly evolved states of coscoussness , to which mckenna and a wilson are also allies in the understanding of other realities , shifted perception and altered states .Thesource42 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

do you see , how , in the context of a dry empirical ration mode , none of this can be discussed , yet the existence of the word clairsentience begs for it and as i have previously said , if your going to have this word on your site then your going to have to allow it to breath its life into here . the word implies a sense which is super human and out of the range of empirical science , so in that case one cannot merely stick to entirely rational modes for describing ite place in the human mind , culture etc which is why i have had to draw on such i wide range of disciplines in order to define it . this then leads to the possibility that this subject should not be in th parapsychology section with their pretentions of science and should perhaps nest somewhere else , although each field i think mof seems inapropriate , eg . philosophy? psychadelia ? altered states ? spirituality ? etc

from the various things i have read in your user talk etc i can see that you have some insight (rare here ) into the irrationality and prejudices of those here claiming objectivity and neutrality and also the hypocracy of the attitides of moderators and editors with regards to who`s view are valued and who`s are not . as i have said elsewhere they hold some very closed minded philosophies yet are ignorant that they hold any philosophy at all . any help with regards the many issues ive raised here , but more specifically , with my article would be greatfully recieved. with many thanks , loon .Thesource42 17:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

i have pasted this in other places across wikpedia where i think thes issues are most in need of addressing. cheers for listening , loon. Thesource42 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] A spirit of Curiosity and Exploration

trues gnosis can be arrived upon in various ways . mckenna was very passionate about straphora cubensis ( see , food of the gods , true hallucinations and invisible landscape ) . but i thing the most frustrating thing , is if one has had a truly trancendant and visionary experience ( william blake etc ) , it is rather frustrating on re entering earth zone only to find the blind leading the blind into ever darker little circles and holes .

how to translate a deeper understanding of the universe to the others left behind ? this is resonant with other points i am raising across wikpedia about the necessity of articles which are either about , as yet unmeasurable by present scientific methods phenomena to be able to talk about the implicit questions raised by their existence .

otherwise remove all of your articles on psychotropic , pysychadelic substances : all psychonauts ( mckenna , wilson etc ); all researchers in fields which are exploring unusual phenomena ( sheldrake , lylle watson etc ) ; all physicists with unusual and groundbreaking ideas : all philosophers who are creating a context for understandine new pheniom,ena ( wilber etc ); all ex nasa scientists who have since gone on to have direct experience of unusual phenomena and have continued on to do the most exaustive research in said area ( barbara brennan specificall ).... because this site is a dead end of pencil pushing pedants who wouldnt recvognise a new idea if it hit them on the head and have rendered wikpedia lifeless , uncreative and completely unfertile with regards to the spirit of curiosity and exploration which surely should be at the centre of any science or knowledge gathering exercise .Thesource42 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Talk Page Archive

I created a new subpage and it is now Archive 1 with a link at above right. Archive 2, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Quantum_mind/archive2" and the link added to the template on this page's code. Some of the talk pages prior to November 27, 2006 to the beginning (3 April 2004) may also have used the refactoring method of talk page management. Archive 1 therefore may not be a complete record of all discussions (though the very first post is in Archive 1). To view other archived talk pages follow these steps: 1. Click on the "History" tab at the top of this page. 2. Click on any date that you wish. That's all you have to do. You will be taken to Wiki's archived talk page for that date. To find the very first talk pages, click on the "Earliest" link at the bottom of the "History" page and scroll down to the links at the bottom of the page. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page or click on "Archives" in the upper right archives box. Permission is granted to other Wiki editors to copy/paste or adapt this talk page notice for other archives. 5Q5 18:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the infobox! I added a modified version in Talk:Dvorak Simplified Keyboard. --ADTC 13:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

  • Article is small enough: can be organised like a small paper.
  • Section/Sub-section increases readability and constraints the floating argumentation.
  • Smaller paragraphs allow correction and improvement.

Dilane 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Large revert

I have reverted the recent edits by Peterdjones. I appreciate his zeal, but given the large changes to the article, they require consensus for addition. I also believe that the material I removed at least partially violates WP:NPOV and also mis-represents quantum physics. Statements stating that quantum entanglement justify telepathy or clairvoyance are unacceptable, because quantum does no such thing. This is discussed nicely elsewhere in Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 19:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I have mis-represented QM. My material in "ESP" section concluded with the remark:
"How strong ESP is as a motivation to adopt quantum mind theories of course depends on how much belief one has in it. Many physicists point out that while there are strange aspects of quantum behaviour, they are confined to the world of the very small."
I don't see how I can have been more critical of the argument from ESP without violating NPOV. Pointing out that minority opinion is minority opinion is exactly the tactic recommended for dealing with pseudoscience in the guidelines.
I also expanded the scepticism/obstacles section. You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to promote Quantum Mind theories. You are mistaken.
1Z
Quantum mechanics has features which are
- suggestive of at least some of the catalogue of traditional extra-sensory abilites.
-
- * Quantum entanglement or "spooky action at a distance" suggests telepathy.
- * Quantum indeterminacy suggest that a quantum entity can be found anywhere and therefore hints ::at telekinesis.

This text (just before that which you cited) is what bothered me most: it is nonsense. Entanglement in no way 'suggests' telepathy and indeterminacy similarly has no relation to telekinesis. I have difficulty finding any chain of thought that connects the two, let alone a suggestion of one in the other. RE. being critical of ESP: I personally am of the opinion that ESP is bollocks and should be treated harshly. This is due to failure of all reliable tests. Following NPOV, we should not say things like 'how much belief one has in it', which sets up a false dichotomy. 'Many physicists' is a mis-statement. What should be said is 'the scientific community'. Also, quantum is not 'confined to the world of the very small'. This is a gross-oversimplification that mis-represents quantum mechanics. A more correct statement is 'the decoherence time of, for example, a neurotransmitter molecule, is so short that indeterminacy is not meaningful in biochemistry'. A full discussion of quantum biochemistry is fall beyond even Wikipedia.

I also do not follow the train of your version: discussions of the conscious mind suddenly jump to quantum mechanics and ESP. The jump to quantum is perhaps understandable, but the second comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere connected to the proposition.

I did not assume that you were advocating this hypothesis. I merely could not accept the wording.

It occurs to me that the quantum mysticism article is a superset of this article. Perhaps a merge is in order. Michaelbusch 07:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

'Quantum mind' is the name by which I've known the subject for some while, possibly through Roger Penrose's work but possibly earlier. Although there is some degree of overlap with mysticism, and no doubt a few charlatans in the vicinity, there are people doing proper science in this area (i.e. it satisfies Popper's criterion). Are fMRI and EEG experiments with highly skilled meditators part of science, Buddhism or mysticism? Clearly they may impinge on all three. There is nevertheless a study of 'quantum mind' the main focus of which is based in science. Davy p 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further removals

Upon reading the article more carefully, I realized that the majority of it was worded such that if this were a new article it would be deemed nonsense. I have purged that which seemed irrelevant or beyond salvage. There is not too much left. I expect that some editors will object to this, but please let it be discussed here so that the article will not consist of bollocks or strangely-worded advocacy for the proposition. Michaelbusch 19:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a potentially severe 'bollocks problem' here, and preservation of NPOV etc. is not easy. Nevertheless there are a fair few well-qualified scientists working in this area, e.g. Penrose, Hammerof, Stapp... While it may turn out that their hypotheses are faulty, what they have said is factual. I'm not so good at history, but it seems that there is also something of a tradition of interest in this area, dating from the time when quantum mechanics first developed, which was largely eclipsed by WWII and has only surfaced again in the last decade or two. It's certainly not an easy topic, but it's one which deserves attention. Davy p 01:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a fair removal

The last Peterdjones is much more informative than the current article, and it is simply stipid to remve such a great deal of good information! I agree that it should be more NPOV and wikified! But not counting the ESP stuff, it was a good collection of arguments and resources. Now the page is almost blank. I hope somebody will save Peterdjones efforts and wikify them, I do not feel qualified. 82.181.48.62 03:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I was intending to continue work on the page. No doubt my efforts are imperfect but the previous page was in a confused state, and the current one is hardly "comprehensive and detailed".

1Z 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)1Z

The style of the article was terrible, the reasoning dubious, citations non-existent. There was a great deal of text but very little content (see above). Michaelbusch 07:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I had citations for almost everything. (Actually, I had citations for eveything I added. The uncited parts were inherited from the previous article).

1Z 11:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)1Z

You did not have citations for the section on quantum suggesting ESP.
I constrain a citation to be a reference that demonstrates a suggestion of ESP in quantum.
Please do not remove material from the talk page. Michaelbusch 17:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I did include a refernce to Victor Stenger's paper debunking the idea
The section was "motivations". People can be motivated by ideas that are false. It is nonetheless a fact that they are so motivated.
1Z 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)1Z
But Wikipedia should not present false ideas in anything other than a critical manner. This is why your text was not acceptable. See my user page, under 'Objection 0'. Michaelbusch 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


I did criticise the ideas, and cited criticism. And decisions about what is "acceptable"

are in need of discussion as much as anything else.1Z 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)1Z

Hello, I fully agree that the old article was full of various errors, but I think that the Q-mind article, must be organized in a more rational fashion - [1] there should be general clarification between "Q-mind" and "Q-mysticism" [for example see this paper. Then [2] the Q-mind should be a kind of gate towards particular models of Q-mind - such as Stapp's model, Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR, etc. In the current version of skepticism section is presented a typical logical fallacy - the quantum effects cannot last long enough - "what means "long"?" As discussed in several published papers such as Informatica 2006; 30: 221-232 (free text) there is big difference between the suggested by Hameroff in the Orch OR model 25 ms of q-coherence, sompared to the entangled protein network for 15 ps within the framework of QBD originated by Umezawa, Vitiello, Jibu and Yasue, and developped in new direction in Georgiev and Glazebrook. Old arguments used against Orch OR, are not generally valid, so one must really do the necessary calculations to disprove the Q-mind in the proposed level of entangled protein dynamics for 15 ps (see this old paper: Does picosecond protein dynamics have survival value? Trends in Biochemical Sciences, Volume 24, Number 7, 1 July 1999, pp. 253-255). Well, I don't want to edit at all the Q-mind article, but if someone is interested in what has been done in the field maybe a fair account should be presented, different from the current censored article. I think that for conventional neuroscientists it is much better to say "QM is not relevant to brain/cognitive function" simply because they are afraid to admit that one must study physics as well. I consider this objection as a cover of intellectual laziness, not as real argument against Q-mind. I am also neuroscientist, but first use a lot of advanced maths before I talk. Danko Georgiev MD 09:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal?

Not sure about the classification here. Since an explanation of consciousness is unlikely to come from classical physics, it makes sense to look elsewhere. Where else is there to look? Regardless of whether it might seem likely or not that quantum effefcts can be important to brain function, there is nowhere else to look but QM at the present time. Thus it would seem quite rational to consider the theory that QM has a role to play. Just like Quantum brain dynamics this is proto-science. I can not see why it should be considered a paranormal subject, any more than the entry for consciousness. As for the reason given for thinking that QM could not have a part to play, it smacks of prejudice because QM plays a part in everything. It is quite easy to see how QM effects can be amplified to create large scale results. Someone can have a moment's inspiration and do something significant and change the world. Just like the butterfly's wings, even the smallest change in a complex system can have very significant consequences far greater than the action that triggered it. Best to keep an open mind, perhaps? Dndn1011 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:No original research. This is not the place to speculate. The paranormal classificiation is required because 'quantum mind' represents quantum mechanics in a manner inconsistent with general understanding (c.f quantum mysticism). Michaelbusch 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
OR rules do not apply to discussion pages, and this is not OR. If they did we could never say very much about an article. The citation is needed because I have to carry out primary research in order to verify it. Additionally, your statement above requires substantiation otherwise I am taking what you are saying on trust. I do not see how QM as a concept is inconcsistent with general understanding. As consciousness is unexplained, provided the idea that general idea of QM cannot be falsified (if the general concept can , please provide a citation) then it is protoscience. I believe you are very wrong in your approach and would ask you to explain yourself. Thank you Dndn1011 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] numbered references, citation of reliable sources

This article needs a numbered reference list. The article needs information that can be associated with verifiable sources that are cited by number in the reference list. This article 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 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

All theories are speculative. Other than that I would agree with you except that the article has been so heavily censored that it really is not saying very much at all. Unless you are suggesting an expansion of the article, which I would also agree with. The theory is interesting and thus desrves perhaps a little more substance than is currently devoted to it. Dndn1011 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to an attempt to expand the article if such an expansion is done according to the Wikipedia policies for citation of reliable and verifiable sources. To be blunt, there are many physicists who have no scientific expertise in the study of mind and consciousness but they are willing to speculate about how quantum physics might "explain" mind. Wikipedia has no obligation to provide a platform for all such speculations. For any scientific theory, Wikipedia heavily relies on the scientific community's peer review process to sort the crap from the valid content. We should focus first on coverage of what has been published in peer-reviewed sources. When we move to speculation that exists in sources beyond peer-reviewed sources we can give a short summary and state clearly that those speculations have not been subjected to testing, challenge and formal peer-review by the scientific community. --JWSchmidt 17:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michaelbusch being obstructive

Sorry but user:Michaelbusch is being obstructive. He seems willing to ignore policy, particularly NPOV, to puch his own agenda. This can be clearly seen where he has reverted a simple word change from "Controversial" to "very much a minority opinion" despite a clear argument that "controversial" is appropriate and "very much a minority opinion" is not. Simple change reverted without disucssion. No citations are provided to the claim that this is a "very much a minority opinion", or any specification of the scope of that statement (i.e. very much a minority opinion among whom?). These can be viewed as weasel words. I do not make this statement because I support one view or the other, only in the interests of fairness and NPOV. You can push a crusade against psuedo science too far, claiming that any unproven new idea is pseudo-science or in the realms of fantasy. Please refer to proto-science for more information. This is proto-science according to my understanding. I see no citation provided to show that Quantum Mind as a principle is falsifiable. Additionally many respected and notable scientists are conducting research in this area. Dndn1011 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the argument of quantum effects being too small would be turned on its head should there be successful development of a quantum computer which is also an active area of research (to say that QuantumMind is not studied is nonsense, there are many people studying the idea, including Penrose of course). If we pretend that quantum effects such as superposition and entanglement are insignificant, and not capable of being reflected in large scale behavior, then we should perhaps tell all those researchers into quantum computing to go home. See Quantum computer. Perhaps user:Michaelbusch would like to classify that article as psuedo-science or paranormal. It would not be the first time. I remember my father joking when I was a lad that in the library books on computing were to be found in the section "occult" Dndn1011 10:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"many respected and notable scientists are conducting research in this area" <-- If this is true, then we should be able to create a good Wikipedia article that is mainly built on our descriptions of work that has been published in peer-reviewed sources. I suggest that we all collaborate to make a list of peer-reviewed publications in the field of "Quantum mind". We should also have a bibliography of non-peer reviewed publications about "Quantum mind". I think we need to make a short list of well-known and influential non-peer reviewed publications that are by both advocates of "Quantum mind" and critics of the idea. --JWSchmidt 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought this possible. Roger Penrose at the very least must have had something published that has been "peer-reviewed". He certainly has had two important and well known books strongly related to the subject published. But please note, that it is not nescessary for sources quoted in wikipedia to have been from peer reviewed sources. Wikipedia is not a specifically scientific publishing authority, it is a repository for information in general in which the scientific view plays its part. Providing content is notable, verfiable and neutral in point of view, then an article will be good. The scientific way of looking at the world is not the only way to look at the world, and if censorship of ideas that are not compatible with current scientific thinking occurs this diminishes wikipedia greatly. Many over zealous defenders of mainstream scientific thinking forget this when editing wiki articles. This particular article is a case in point. Regardless of body of opinion that exists for or against the possibility that there is something in this theory, the theory exists, is verfified to exist, has not been shown to be falsifiable, there are peoeple working on it and if the thoery is correct it would have very notable consequences. Thus it most certainly belongs in wikipedia, which should inform people of the fact and present state of issues and then allow the reader to make up their own mind. Currently this article is in the category of "paranormal" which is completely wrong. This is protoscience for the reasons I have stated and as yet no one has presented a counter argument to my view. This counter argument would require showing that this theory is falsifiable. Arguments such as "not many people are researching it" are completely irrelevant, because the theory continues to exist inspite of this. Dndn1011 18:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
To the extent that there seems to be a need to provide legitimacy for the topic 'quantum mind', perhaps Stanford's Plato Encyclopaedia provides a useful reference as a starting point: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/. It's hard to see why this shouldn't be acceptable.
Discussions on quantum mind have been going on since the early days of quantum physics, with authors such as Whitehead and Pauli + Jung. Besides current 'proto-science', the early history is relevant if suitable sources can be found. Davy p 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Dndn1011: Actually, you are mistaken about the peer-reviewed requirement. According to the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision, WP:V is to be understood as meaning that articles on scientific topics need to be sourced from reputable and reliable peer-reviewed sources or widely respected and reputable textbooks. The Tegmark paper seems to be the only source currently listed that both satisfies this and is relevant - while the Bennett, Shor, et al paper (which I read a while ago) is very important and respected, I don't see how it relates to to the topic.
Also, as a response to your argument about quantum computing, this article does a very poor job of explaining the topic. Quantum effects are of extreme importance in the mind just as they are everywhere else - at the most basic level, without quantum effects, there wouldn't be any atoms, even if one were to assume the existence of elementary particles and nucleons. Classical mechanics can't fully explain basic chemistry, let alone consciousness. But that doesn't mean that entanglement and other such phenomena are responsible for the brain's operation in the way that is purported by those who support this - quantum states decohere on a much smaller and faster scale. This is actually one of the largest problems in building a quantum computer as well, and thus they generally need to be operated under extreme conditions. --Philosophus T 09:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision, this is a bad decision if your intepretation is full and correct. It would mean that articles such as Afshar experiment would have to be cast out as non-scientific because it has yet to have been published in a peer reviewed source (although this is apparently going to happen soon). Additionally this is your interpretation which given the obvious biases you apply in interpretations of things so far, I would hesitate to take on trust. The best solution of course is to have a category for "Scientific Articles as yet not from peer reviewed sources". Wikipedia should not be attempting to censor information. And even given what you are saying, calling this an article on the paranormal is laughable. Any articles that are just "made up theories" (as if there are theories that are not made up, but anyway...) will fail on grounds of notability.
With regards to the argument I presented on Quantum Computing, I was fully aware of what the article meant. However you rubbish the possibility by applying assumptions. The critical assumption you make is that "quantum states decohere on a much smaller and faster scale" make it impossible for these effects to cause larger scale behavior. Additionally "purported by those who support this" is unfair, as they are considering the possibility not stating it to be true (there is no proof as yet), something which obviously you can't cope with, and also I should point out that "and thus they generally need to be operated under extreme conditions" is a nonsense because so far quantum computers do not opperate at all, because they are still only theoretical, just as the possibility that the brain is a quantum computer is. Might does not mean Right. (OK bad pun sorry). If you can not prove that something cannot be then it might be. This is the case with both quantum computing and quantum mind theory. The value of the "might" depends on the possible value of any discoveries that result from research in these areas. It would appear the value is equally high for both. I hope that clarifies the purpose of my analogy. It saddens me that you fail consitently to be aware of your own assumptions and personal biases, yet continue to act as an arbiter of truth. Dndn1011 19:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to explain quantum mechanics to everyone. I would suggest reading John Preskill's course notes for his quantum computation course, which do a good job of explaining quantum mechanics in the context of computation and quantum information theory. --Philosophus T 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey Philosophus, some errors are not matter of knowing QM. Tegmark says that a system is classical one if t_dec << t_dyn, where t_dec is the decoherence time, and t_dyn is the dynamics time of the system. The error is that he calculates microtubule decoherence time t_dec_MT and improperly compares it with the neuronal electric dynamics time scale t_dyn_N. But this is just obvious overlook. One needs to compare t_dec_MT with t_dyn_MT and since tubulins are enzymes/proteins, their dynamic timescale is 10-15 picoseconds. So the involvement of QM is only marginal when one must understand Tegmark's error. To quote that Tegmark cites Hameroff that the needed coherence time for MT is 25 ms is logical fallacy, because Hameroff is not even authority in molecular biology. Danko Georgiev MD 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed I am no expert in QM or molecular biology, and indeed this places me in a good position to edit an article that is meant to be understandable to non-experts. If someone has a proof that the Quantum Mind concept is not possible then that would be one thing (let's see the refrences), but it seems clear that arguments presented are are not water-tight for either side of the debate. The debate is continuing. If I present a logical high level argument and it is nonsense, then it is no good just saying "I don't have time to explain quantum mechanics to everyone". The article is supposed to represent the true state of current thinking and present it in a manner that even I could understand. It seems to me that many people think that quantum mind theory is unlikely (often these are people appear to be those who still think that deterministic algorithms can explain consciousness and drive their AI research in this direction, even though there are strong philosophical arguments to the contrary), and equally there are many people who consider it a good place to look in trying to understand the mystery of consciousness. As I have said before, there is nowhere else to look. If there is somewhere else to look then the article should mention that.
As an aside, and presenting a counter argument which has at least as much validity as guesses over significance of time scales, the scientific view of the universe being deterministic, which was the central theme of classical physics, presented a big question: "What of free will?". Quantum Mechanics came along and showed that the universe might be non-deterministic at the most fundemental level. This was good news for those who felt that that they did have control over their own lives and were not simply playing out a script. It provided a possible way of saving the concept of free will. Somewhat important because otherwise how could any of us take responsibility for our own actions? Well, hello? Anyone spot the connection? If quantum mechanics allows the concept of free will to have validity, then it would suggest rather strongly that free will and quantum mechanics are going to be related. I don't need to be an expert in Quantum Mechanics or Molecular Biology to come up with that argument. Since free will and consciousness are rather tightly related (don't confuse free will with randomness... a six sided die may generated random choices freely, but to have free will suggests a conscious choice!) and since quantum mechanics provides a way to allow free will to exist at all (even if it can't actually explain it as yet), it is only logical to conclude that quantum mechanics *may* (yes that's may....) have something to do with conciousness. Frankly the antagonism towards this concept is quite irrational. Dndn1011 11:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on Explaining Science

Philosophus raises an important point: explaining quantum physics or any other field of science through Wikipedia is almost impossible. This can be a problem when it comes to explaining edits or classifications, as has happened on this article. Fortunately, this is Wikipedia, so there are enough people who know a field well enough to edit it reliably. The problem is knowing one's limits. I defer to Philosophus when it comes to theoretical physics, for example. Michaelbusch 05:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tegmark's critique

I post here clear explanation of Tegmark's and Hameroff's errors. The paper has been refereed and published NQJ although the journal itself might not be considered as top journal. Well, Tegmark's classification of classical vs. quantum systems requires "the dynamic timescale of the system under study to be equal to the decoherence timescale of the system". Hameroff in Orch OR however does a big mismodeling - microtubules are proteins, and they have certain enzymatic functions - this requires dynamic timescale for tubulin to be of the order of the dynamic timescale of every other enzyme - it means 10-15 picoseconds. Hameroff for unknown to me reasons requires microtubule coherence time of 25 milliseconds, which is roughly the time for the neuronal membrane electric firing from the brain cortex to thalamus and back. This is called "reverberation loop". Itself the system with the dynamic timescale of 25 ms is the reciprocal loop - cortical neuron + thalamic neuron. And for 25 ms the electric firing goes from the cortex to the thalamus, generates new firing that returns back from the thalamus to the brain cortex. But such a severe error to claim after that microtubules are not quantum system, just because their decoherence time is shorter than the above described classical process of electric reverberation is very unserious. All this is perfectly explained in my paper NQJ and I give evidence that each conscious step of human is far beyond the shortest time interval able to create perception of "subjective feeling of time passed". Thus each conscious step is certainly not generating "feeling of time" and there is no any paradox or problem if one assumes that microtubules and q-mind is a kind of 100 GHz quantum processor. Tegmark is certainly not a specialist in Q-mind, and Hameroff-penrose's Orch OR is not the best Q-mind model either. Danko Georgiev MD 09:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. Michaelbusch 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored1Z 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Err, that policy doesn't apply to original research, and was never intended to be applied in such a way. Inclusion of original research is explicitly against policy per WP:NOR. --Philosophus T 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Quantum Brain Dynamics

The topics appear identical or variations on the same concept. Ripe 21:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several distinct theories of quantum consciousness, which are based on quite different assumptions. Thus Penrose/Hameroff look for access to fundamental spacetime, quantum brain dynamics sees the interaction of quantum fields with the biological brain as the key factor, and Stapp, using something close to the traditional Copenhagan Interpretation of quantum theory seems to look for an existing consciousness to collapse wave functions within the brain. Moreover, this does not exhaust the list of quantum related theories. Of course, they could be dealt with one by one in the same long article or possibly book, but they are too different for any real merging to be feasible. Persephone19 16:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's stop this discussion and leave the articles as they are: cross referenced

These two articles cross reference each other and should not be merged. They are in the same field but refer to different subjects, are of different scope and describe approaches by different people. Richwil 09:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proponents of the Quantum mind theory

This article lacks a clear definition of the theory prior to the criticism. Would someone please expand upon the theory, either by adding to the introduction or adding a new section outlining the argument?

There is not a single versions of QMind theory. It might be possible to summarise some of the variations. Penrose's theory is already described on a number of pages, although they are currently

in a disorganised state. 1Z 12:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief summery of the major arguments would be in order? 80.42.177.132 10:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some responses to earlier critiques:

I recently found these observations that Quantum Mind theorists have made that may perhaps be put into the article: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0701&L=quantum-mind&P=59

In addition one quantum mind theorist responded to a criticism by Shermer which also highlights that this theory has gone into the testing phase: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/hackery.htm (just scroll down to the second article)

[edit] Article failing in adequacy and possibly also in neutrality

There are at least five main quantum consciousness theories involving very different mechanisms. None of these are really described in this article. Neutrality is also questionable. Wikipedia's guidance on controversial subjects is that both sides should be given however silly one or both may seem. The bit on Tegmark does not really mention that there have been replies to and criticism of his paper. Further, the bit saying that there is no peer reviewed evidence risks misleading the casual reader, since there are peer reviewed discussions about quantum consciousness and also peer reviewed accounts of experiments suggestive of quantum coherence in biological tissue. I think a bit should be appended to the existing article describing the main theories, and there should be some improvement to neutrality. I'm not particularly happy about doing this, but I may put something in before long if no one else does. Persephone19 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Related material on other pages needs to be revised as well. WP does not need another muddled exposition of Penrose. 1Z 08:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about there being problems on other pages. As for this one, what it seems to lack is an exposition of at least the five or six main theories, of which Penrose, muddled or otherwise, is only one. Persephone19 17:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The article currently refers to the "quantum mind hypothesis" without ever explaining what this hypothesis is. Then motivations are discussed, but no mention is made as to how those motivations are addressed in the ethereal theory. Not to mention the "ongoing debate," but debate into what? I ask! Without a summary of relevant hypotheses, or at least links to related articles, this article serves no purpose.

Also, the motivation section is b.s. for other reasons. A common argument underlying the quantum mind thesis is that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, if only because Galileo and Newton (together with their admirers, viz., Locke, Hobbes and Descartes) excluded the secondary qualities from the physical world. Excuse me? 1. A whole lot happened in psychology research between Newton and QM. 2. In jumping from CM to QM, one misses statistical mechanics. It's a whole lot more applicable to biological systems than classical mechanics. It should be addressed. 3. Locke, Hobbes, and Descartes are philosophers; what do they have to do with Galileo and Newton? 4. No person excluded the secondary qualities from the physical world, they're just hard to describe. It doesn't mean classical mechanics failed, the people of the time just didn't have the machinery to do what needed to be done in brain research. JFlav 04:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The passage quotes an argument made by QMind proponents. It may be BS, but it is verifiable BS.
Do you have a reference for explanations of qualia or secondary qualities using statistical mechanics?1Z 10:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but that's not what I was claiming anyway. I never said statistical mechanics was any kind of answer to the hard problem of consciousness. Perhaps I could make myself more clear.

Two logical fallacies are at work in this article:

  1. A false dichotomy between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics.

    The quantum mind hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot fully explain consciousness and suggests that quantum mechanical phenomena such as quantum entanglement and superposition may play an important part in the brain's function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.

    A common argument underlying the quantum mind thesis is that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, if only because Galileo and Newton (together with their admirers, viz., Locke, Hobbes and Descartes) excluded the secondary qualities from the physical world[citation needed].

    These quotes are from the article. If, as you claim, they quote "an argument made by QMind proponents," these quotes are uncited.
  2. A straw man, as classical mechanics is not used to study the brain or mind anyway.

    Classical mechanics (commonly confused with Newtonian mechanics, which is a subfield thereof) is used for describing the motion of macroscopic objects, from projectiles to parts of machinery, as well as astronomical objects, such as spacecraft, planets, stars, and galaxies.

My earlier rant was partially in reference to the poor writing in the article (and I think my first paragraph still stands), and partially in reference to these logical fallacies. In fact there are multiple other overlapping disciplines that are all better suited to deal with the structures and dynamics of the brain. These include, but are not limited to, neuroscience (including neurology and neuropsychology), biophysics, biochemistry, and cell biology just to name a few. I apologize for being glib, but I lumped all these together as statistical mechanics, a gross oversimplification.

If the cited authors actually make the claims that only classical mechanics is currently used in brain research, a straw man, and that quantum mechanics is the only alternative area of science to use in studying the brain, a false dichotomy, this should be mentioned in the Ongoing Debate section (which, on an unrelated note, I think should be renamed "Criticism"). If, however, the authors do not make this claim, and only the article contains these fallacies, then the article should be revised to reflect the authors' actual statements. Either way, some mention needs to be made of the other very important branches of science at work in the brain. JFlav 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrase 'classical mechanics' may have been used to mean something like 'deterministic processes'. And there is indeed something of a philosophical problem at least if the brain is said to function solely on the basis of deterministic processes, for there can then be no such thing as free will.
The idea that there may be something about life which goes beyond processes which can be described by the strictly causal laws of science sometimes seems to be too romantic for hard-nosed physicalists, who often reject it with surprising vehemence. A fair few scientists though, peer-reviewed to boot, do subscribe to the 'beyond physicalism' or 'beyond reductionism' camps. It seems neither unreasonable nor bad science to look to QM, as some of them do, for possible resolution of the free will/determinism paradox. Davy p 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But "beyond determinism" is neither "beyond physicalism" nor "beyond reductionism". 1Z 00:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persephone

You addition of material on Bohm and co is welcome, but I cannot see why you have started a completely new section. doesn't it belong under "Examples" ? 1Z 11:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have transferred the disputed section from the main article to below. It is incomplete and seems to have been cut-and-pasted. 1Z 19:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Five Go Looking for Quantum Consciousness

The sections below attempt to deal with the four main theories of quantum consciousness. The four main theories, which are long-established and frequently in mainstream literature and text books are dealt with in alphabetical order as, the Implicate Order, Orch OR, Quantum Brain Dynamics and Stapp. Gustav Bernroider at the University of Salzburg has previously produced material sympathetic to David Bohm's implicate order but has subsequently produced papers that suggest a brain mechanism for consciousness distinct from any of the four main theories. His proposal is appended to the section on Bohm's implicate order.

[edit] The Implicate Order -- David Bohm,Basil Hiley,Karl Pribram

David Bohm, who was assisted by Basil Hiley, took the view that quantum theory and relativity contradicted one another, and that this contradiction implied that there had to exist a more fundamental level in the universe[14]. This more fundamental level was proposed to represent an undivided wholeness and an implicate order, from which arises the explicate order of the universe that we actually experience and as described by classical physics.

Bohm's implicate order applies both to matter and consciousness, and he suggests that it can explain the relationship between the two. Mind and matter are viewed as related projections into the explicate order from the underlying reality of the implicate order. Bohm argues that the extension of matter and separation of its parts in space as described by classical physics does not provide any concepts that help us in understanding consciousness.

Bohm compares this problem to Descartes discussion of the difference between mind and matter. Descartes to some extent relied on God to resolve the gap. Bohm says that since Descartes time the idea of introducing God into the equation has been let drop, and he claims that as a result conventional modern thinking has been left with no means of bridging the gap between matter and consciousness.

In Bohm's scheme there is an unbroken wholeness at the fundamental level of the universe, in which conciousness is not separated from matter. Bohm draws on the ideas of Karl Pribram. Pribram views sight and the other senses as analogous to lens, without which the universe would appear as a hologram. Pribram thinks that information is recorded all over the brain, and that this information is enfolded into a whole, also in the manner of a hologram, although it is suggested that the physical function involved is more complicated than a hologram[15&16]. Pribram proposes that

I had to break off while putting in something longer.
The question really is whether this is going to become a proper article on quantum mind theories, where four, five or even six quite distinct theories would be described or is it left in the current muddled state. A lot of people don't like quantum consciousness, but there something funny about an encyclopaedia that has a quite long, quite well written and very attractively illustrated section on astrology but cannot come up with a sensible article on theories which have been advanced by leading scientists. Persephone19 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose that's a relatively polite way of saying that the examples sections on Penrose and Stapp needs to be fuller and where's quantum brain dynamics which doesn't get a proper coverage in its own article and also Bohm. But certainly Bohm and QBD could be under examples. Chalmers should go somewhere else, because while he attacks conventional consciousness theories, he is also opposed to quantum theories. Persephone19 22:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
All right lets have another go putting Bohm and friends in examples following on Stapp and Penrose. Persephone19 14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I have now tried to summarise the ideas of Bohm and some of his supporters, in the hope that this approach could be used for further additions to the page. Persephone19 17:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
To be relevant, Chalmers has oto be saying something about QMind theories; he does not have to be saying anything positive.1Z 21:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Including four, five or six main strands will take some doing. But that seems to be what is needed if science is to be on as good a footing as astrology. I don't mean to complicate things at a time when progress may be being made with this article, but shouldn't there be a mention of Alfred North Whitehead and early aspects of process physics (those to which Abner Shimony sometimes refers, and develops, rather than the slightly nutty religious version that seems to have spun out from it). Whitehead saw consciousness as intrinsic in process from the outset. Davy p 00:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful here: did Whitehead himself mention quantum physics? 1Z 08:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

He certainly wasn't unfamiliar with it, though his appraoch is from a somewhat different direction.

Google with [+Whitehead +"quantum mechanics] +conscious +mind] gets lots of hits, including this mention: EPPERSON, Michael. Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. New York: Fordham University Press, 2004. xiv + 261 pp. Cloth, $55.00--The central claims of this book are that the philosophy of Whitehead and quantum mechanics are intimately linked, especially in their incompatibility with "materialism," and that each of these can illuminate the other.

What I wondered, however, was something more along the lines of Appendix 6 in Stapp's Mindful Universe or Abner Shimony's comments about Whitehead in Penrose's 'The Large, the small and the Human Mind'.

From Stapp: "A number of physicists, including Abner Shimony (1965, 1993), Rudolf Haag (1996), and myself (Stapp, 1977, 1979) have emphasized the seeming appropriateness of the ontological ideas of Alfred North Whitehead. Those ideas, even though they have been tied into quantum physics in the references cited above, fall under the heading of “speculative philosophy”. Whitehead was stimulated by early developments in quantum theory but relied more on philosophical and logical considerations than on empirical data, or the detailed structure of relativistic quantum field theory. But in view of the way basic physical theory has been moving in recent years it is not clear that the “speculations” of Whitehead are completely different in kind from what now frequently appears in physics journals." Davy p 22:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I've fixed up the citations list (somewhat). The article now uses proper ref tags; previously, some of the citations were being manually numbered. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to use the citation capabilities built in to wikipedia. fraggle (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Persephone19 (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)