Quantum Brain

#1
I've recently become very interested in theories such as this one, which postulate that consciousness might arise from quantum activity within the brain, namely nuclear spins (as the earlier theory by penrose et al was apparently partially falsified at this point). This theory, for one, postulates that our consciousness and "working memory" are very closely linked, with neuclear spins being preserved for similar periods that we report short term memories lasting - and after that, i could add, possibly archived in places other than our mind for when we "cross over".

The studies relating to this theory (many are linked on the page) are ongoing, and I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of people here on this topic.
 
#4
The many controversies in the history of science show that the best explanation for data is ultimately an opinion. And you can't prove a scientific theory you can only disprove one.

Here is my opinion:

I don't believe any physical process can explain consciousness.

The evidence from quantum mechanics can be interpreted as showing consciousness is fundamental, you need consciousness first before you can have matter therefore consciousness cannot be produced by matter.

And also the fact that ESP cannot be explained by any physical process also indicates that consciousness cannot be produced by the brain, ESP is not dependent on time or distance. The neurological patterns in one brain will not match the patterns in another brain so telepathy cannot be explained by any physical process in the brain. And quantum entanglement cannot have any role in ESP because for particles to become entangled they have to be physically near each other.

The theory that the brain is a filter of consciousness explains more evidence than the theory that the brain produces consciousness therefore the filter model is a better explanation of the brain than the production model.

All the evidence for the afterlife is evidence that the brain does not produce consciousness.

No physical process can explain subjective phenomena such as what happy feels like or what blue looks like, and claiming that complicated neuronal structures can do it is like saying if you get enough bricks you can make a ham sandwich from bricks. No amount of bricks will produce a ham sandwich, and no amount of neurons can cause the color blue to look like blue.

I think the brain can influence consciousness, it can filter, aggregate, and present sensory information to consciousness. This includes obvious sensations like touch, sound, sight, but also emotions and possibly the capabilities of thought and memory might be duplicated with physical analogues in the brain.
 
Last edited:
#6
The many controversies in the history of science show that the best explanation for data is ultimately an opinion. And you can't prove a scientific theory you can only disprove one.

Here is my opinion:

I don't believe any physical process can explain consciousness.

The evidence from quantum mechanics can be interpreted as showing consciousness is fundamental, you need consciousness first before you can have matter therefore consciousness cannot be produced by matter.

And also the fact that ESP cannot be explained by any physical process also indicates that consciousness cannot be produced by the brain, ESP is not dependent on time or distance. The neurological patterns in one brain will not match the patterns in another brain so telepathy cannot be explained by any physical process in the brain. And quantum entanglement cannot have any role in ESP because for particles to become entangled they have to be physically near each other.

The theory that the brain is a filter of consciousness explains more evidence than the theory that the brain produces consciousness therefore the filter model is a better explanation of the brain than the production model.

All the evidence for the afterlife is evidence that the brain does not produce consciousness.

No physical process can explain subjective phenomena such as what happy feels like or what blue looks like, and claiming that complicated neuronal structures can do it is like saying if you get enough bricks you can make a ham sandwich from bricks. No amount of bricks will produce a ham sandwich, and no amount of neurons can cause the color blue to look like blue.

I think the brain can influence consciousness, it can filter, aggregate, and present sensory information to consciousness. This includes obvious sensations like touch, sound, sight, but also emotions and possibly the capabilities of thought and memory might be duplicated with physical analogues in the brain.
I agree with that. Furthermore, physicists have combed through what a quantum computer can and cannot do (if a reasonable one is ever built) , and as I understand it, the most it could do, is to speed up some processes that can be performed more slowly on a conventional computer.

Quantum computers are composed of 'qubits', such as electrons or atomic nuclei, that can be set up in quantum superposition. In theory these can be assembled into a quantum computer, but in practice the process becomes rapidly more difficult as the number of qubits increases. I rather doubt that a usefully sized device will ever be built, but even if it is, it will only speed up certain tasks.

David
 
#7
The many controversies in the history of science show that the best explanation for data is ultimately an opinion. And you can't prove a scientific theory you can only disprove one.

Here is my opinion:

I don't believe any physical process can explain consciousness.

The evidence from quantum mechanics can be interpreted as showing consciousness is fundamental, you need consciousness first before you can have matter therefore consciousness cannot be produced by matter.

And also the fact that ESP cannot be explained by any physical process also indicates that consciousness cannot be produced by the brain, ESP is not dependent on time or distance. The neurological patterns in one brain will not match the patterns in another brain so telepathy cannot be explained by any physical process in the brain. And quantum entanglement cannot have any role in ESP because for particles to become entangled they have to be physically near each other.

The theory that the brain is a filter of consciousness explains more evidence than the theory that the brain produces consciousness therefore the filter model is a better explanation of the brain than the production model.

All the evidence for the afterlife is evidence that the brain does not produce consciousness.

No physical process can explain subjective phenomena such as what happy feels like or what blue looks like, and claiming that complicated neuronal structures can do it is like saying if you get enough bricks you can make a ham sandwich from bricks. No amount of bricks will produce a ham sandwich, and no amount of neurons can cause the color blue to look like blue.

I think the brain can influence consciousness, it can filter, aggregate, and present sensory information to consciousness. This includes obvious sensations like touch, sound, sight, but also emotions and possibly the capabilities of thought and memory might be duplicated with physical analogues in the brain.
The links in this post are great, thanks for this.

What I've personally been wondering is not along the lines of consciousness being an entirely physical process (though this is how the theory seems to word it) but along the lines of quantum processes themselves not being entirely physical or deterministic. Essentially, I'm wondering about how a conscious mind controls a body, i.e. whether the conscious mind has some kind of influence over these quantum processes and how that works.
 
Top