The Brain is Not the Seat of Consciousness!

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by wooleeheron, May 11, 2018.

  1. wooleeheron

    wooleeheron Brain Damaged Lifetime Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory - ScienceDirect

    This paper is really technical and I'll have to look at some other time, but this is something I've been waiting to hear for several years. When they did the first experiments and confirmed the existence of quantum mechanic in the brain they couldn't necessarily pin down the source of consciousness as being quantum mechanical, just that quantum mechanics were involved some memories and some brain waves. Apparently, they've now confirmed that consciousness itself originates in quantum interaction in the brain.

    While I was expecting this, the revelation just blew me away because this provides an easy way to prove that 42 actually is as good an explanation as any other. Although I work on these nonstop, I still don't have this one worked out exactly, because it requires reformulating Shannon Entropy and thermodynamics as expressing energy and information as indivisible and, sometimes, indistinguishable. Boyle's Law and Mach's Conjecture fit in there somehow, and this is basically the theory of everything that says everything is the way it is because, otherwise, we would not be debating the issue.

    Well, I thought I'd throw this out there for anyone who cares or wants to bend their noodle.
     
  2. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    It looks to me that this theory doesn't say that the brain isn't the seat of consciousness, it just proposes a different type of brain function that produces conscious instead of the accepted neural interaction one.

     
    tumbling.dice likes this.
  3. wooleeheron

    wooleeheron Brain Damaged Lifetime Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Penrose worked with a neurologist to figure out where quantum mechanic might exist in the brain, and they developed the theory you are looking at on Wikipedia, but that theory is twenty years old and they are updating it as they collect more evidence. You could say they are working backwards, and attempting to rule out any classical explanations, while they narrow down the possibilities. My own guess, is they will eventually discover four rudimentary types of quantum induced effects including stochastic, due to the supersymmetry, but I believe this new paper establishes that they traced consciousness back all the way to the microwave vibration in the axions.

    The implication of consciousness emerging from quantum mechanics, is that the brain serves as a kind of puppet theater of the absurd. Its the computer, that our conscious uses to play with, and is a creative engine really. It just means they won't ever be able to define consciousness any better than entanglement. I believe Penrose was originally interested in proving psychic phenomena are real using his older and more metaphysical theory, but had to abandon that for now and follow the experimental evidence where it leads.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2018
  4. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

  5. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    Sure, it's possible, but all they're saying is that the brain interacts with certain laws of reality, in this case random quantum indeterminacy.

    I don't see how this any different than saying that random electrical discharges in the brain leads to consciousness. It just goes to a deeper level. It doesn't say that consciousness is an a priori fact that exists before the microwave vibration in the axions.
    They're still saying the brain is necessary for consciousness, they haven't proven that consciousness exists without the microwave vibration in the axions.
     
  6. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    So the link lists three possible origins for consciousness, only option 'A' has any legitimate scientific evidence. "This prevalent scientific view is that consciousness emerged as a property of complex biological computation during the course of evolution". It actually has a a massive preponderance of replicable medical and scientific evidence. That consciousness is an emergent state of highly complex interactions between billions of brain cell neurons. That consciousness can be easily and predictably modified with physical, chemical, and electrical changes to the brain. That is why it IS the prevalent scientific view. The 'abstract' introduction also contradicts this fact and tries to maintain some ignorance that "its ultimate place in the universe are unknown". Again, neuroscience does know with a great deal of confidence and a preponderance of evidence.

    Orchestrated Objective Reduction... Woo woo sensationalist pseudo-science. It's just more nonsense building on peoples ignorance of quantum mechanics. The kind of junk science and misinformation that spiritualists and religious love to cling to. Yes, electron flow is quantum physics within the atoms of conductive materials and consciousness could not exist without this mechanism. That does not mean consciousness IS that mechanism. Consciousness is far more complex than a single wave or quanta energy. It's like, what is a car? A car is a complex arrangement of metal formed parts, nuts, bolts, and other material. A single spec of iron dust does not contain the essence of what a car is. Just like a quantum particle of EM energy does not intrinsically contain the essence of consciousness.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2018
  7. neonspectraltoast

    neonspectraltoast Senior Member

    Even if you could reduce consciousness to an emergent property of the brain it wouldn't solve how it relates to time, so nothing it solved. People don't seem to grasp that without a full working knowledge of what time is you can't really understand virtually anything.
     
  8. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    Time is a function of energy. Energy is movement over time. Energy would not exist without movement, movement would not exist without time. Neither matter nor consciousness would exist without energy. Pound per pound, our brains consume more energy than any other part of our body. Our brains literally process tonnes of data.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2018
  9. wooleeheron

    wooleeheron Brain Damaged Lifetime Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Time is not a function of energy in the Quantum Zeno Effect. Let me try to put this in perspective, I'll just give a quick summary of what I know so far about the overall architecture of the brain.

    People have compared the brain to a computer for ages now, but it also resembles a stereo amplifier and we are seeing similar results throughout the body and nature. The computer-like aspect can be compared to the particle-like aspect, while the stereo reflects the wave-like. For example, proteins have been documented as "vibrating" and ringing like bell in order to accelerate their folding faster. In technobabble, the brain resembles a distributed gain amplifier with probabilistic memory that vanishes into indeterminacy.

    What quantum mechanics brings to the brain, is speeds and efficiencies that are sometimes over 100% efficient. You can argue all you want that nothing can be more than 100% efficient, but even the chip in your computer actually relies on the fact they account for the electron "holes" moving around, rather than the electrons. It makes you go cross eyed, which is why Neils Bohr famously shouted, "Shut up and calculate!" If it didn't make you go cross eyed, it would not be quantum mechanics as anyone currently knows it.

    In other words, the brain displays a clear analog logic, that can also reproduce classical logic. Mathematicians have already begun to combine the two into a fuzzy logic that can express classical logic. That's the particle-wave duality, in my opinion. That consciousness originates in entanglement makes it nonlocal, so our conscious mind reflects our local reality, and our subconscious or nonlocal connection to the universe and collective unconscious. At their most fundamental level of organization, the mind and brain have already been documented as substituting for each other's normal roles whenever it is more efficient.

    They are going down the rabbit hole in a methodical fashion, and all the evidence we are steadily accumulating indicate its a singularity and 42 really is as good an explanation as any other.
     
  10. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

     
  11. wooleeheron

    wooleeheron Brain Damaged Lifetime Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Then you are calling the entire physics community liars, when all you have to do is look it up for yourself.
     
  12. So you just google stuff, string it together in sentences, hope that no one looks to closely

    You didnt even read the 3 yr old article
     
  13. neonspectraltoast

    neonspectraltoast Senior Member

    For all we know this is a computer simulation and our pure essence is being stored on a magical hard drive somewhere.

    I wish people could understand that our six senses don't observe very much of reality at all. What do they say? Like 99% of everything (okay I'm not sure the actual figure) is unobserved by us? There are no easy answers and there's really no way to tell what is going on here.

    If scientists were honest they would refrain from saying what life is. The truth is that we just lack the capacity to know such things. If scientists were honest, they would preface all of their findings with "From a human perspective" because that's the best we can do. "From a human perspective the sky is blue." "From a human perspective the Earth revolves around the sun." Question everything, I say, 'cause it's all up for grabs.

    It irritates me that people can't seem to grasp just how tiny we are and therefore how seriously lacking in perspective. People will say, "Oh, the Earth is just a tiny speck. We're not that significant" when it serves their philosophical needs, but when it comes to actually knowing everything...well then everybody's an expert.

    Where consciousness resides doesn't matter all that much. But what we are being told is that the future and past are real places that particles can travel to. If a particle can travel to the past or the future, that makes time an entirely different dimension. Try to comprehend how you can die and there's still a past in which you are living. Heck, even with general relativity a person can be dead from their perspective and living from another, if the former is traveling fast enough. What does that mean? It means that life and death issues aren't as black and white as they seem.

    And what does it mean to be alive, anyway? It is to be brimming with energy, one with the universe (as we undoubtedly are,) or does it mean to know that the Cubs beat the Mets on Sunday? I highly doubt that all of this life, everything that matters, just becomes null and void one day, but that's just me. I don't need to go on living forever, because I have what I have. Death can't take that away from me. But I'm not too quick to assume that what I see is what I get. There is an eternity that lies beyond "living forever." An eternity in moments that are too pure to fade. I am waxing poetic here, but what I am trying to say is just to accept that you don't know everything and to stop making so many declarative statements regarding these issues.
     
  14. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    Like I said in the Bell's theorem thread, it's the dishonest misleading sensationalist corruption in science that I have a problem with. Most real scientists do not believe single photons have intrinsic consciousness. Humans are dishonest and inject their corruption in everything. It's a disgrace that most people don't understand that 'entangled' particles are simply polar pairs. There is no spooky communications going on. This is the kind of misinformation that has spiritualists thinking quantum theory proves God, or light-bulbs have consciousness, and all kinds of other bullshit nonsense.
     
  15. neonspectraltoast

    neonspectraltoast Senior Member

    There you go making declarative statements. "simply polar pairs" What does that even mean? Do you know what a polar pair is? Okay, two particles separated over fifty million light years interact. Oh...they're simply "polar pairs"...nothing completely fucking cool about that.

    What does it mean for something to be completely fucking cool, do I ask you? You see, humans have this capacity for wonder and amazement. It is a property of the universe: We have it. "This seems to be the case. That seems to be the case." It also seems completely fucking extraordinary. Where's that in the scientific lexicon?
     
  16. wilsjane

    wilsjane Member

    Perhaps the day that the human brain can comprehend infinity the whole world will change.
     
    neonspectraltoast likes this.
  17. wooleeheron

    wooleeheron Brain Damaged Lifetime Supporter HipForums Supporter

    I know its hard to believe, but scientists are never to be confused with science. When they start contradicting themselves on a regular basis, pay attention to what they do, and not what they say. Nowhere is this more apparent, than in quantum mechanics and fuzzy logic. Analog logic is their weakness, but nature is analog and they know it.
     
  18. Grrrr

    Analog(ue) logic? nature is analog(ue)

    What the hell are you talking about?????
     
  19. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    "Entangled" particles are created in labs and last nanoseconds. Scientists use radioactive material, or lasers, crystals, and mirrors to create photons with a mirrored pair. Each photon is blasted at a polarized sensor and if the polarity matches it registers a signal. For some crooked reason, some 'scientists' would want you to think that that observing the results from one sensor magically changes the other photon. Just about every science video about the subject regurgitates this illogical diarrhea....



    When one sensor observation is made, they do instantly know what the other particles polarity will be. But they keep saying that observation "instantly" changes the other particle as if by magic. Well it is magic, if your definition of magic is a trick of misdirection and misinformation. When making experiments with photons that last nanoseconds, everything does seem rather instantaneous to human perspective. But saying "instantly" in quantum physics is very misleading. Say a lab is testing entangled photons, one travels a few meters to a sensor and lasted ~10 nanoseconds. The other travels 2KM away through fiber-optics and lasted 100 nanoseconds. They seem to want you to believe that measuring the first particle @ 10 nanoseconds will literally change the second particle instantly before it hits its designated sensor in 90 more nanoseconds. This is nonsense that literally can not be proven because the other particle has not yet been observed. It also violates the law of relativity because objects traveling at light-speed are frozen in time and can not possibly change until they are knocked out of light-speed.

    This is the parlor trick of entanglement in a nutshell: Let's just replace particles with shoes. I take a pair of shoes, package them up separately and send one shoe to Mexico and send the other to the moon. Nobody knows what polarity shoe (left or right) is in which box. I get my colleagues in Mexico to open the box and observe the shoe polarity. Now check this out, this is the spooky magical part... hold on to your fucking seats because this is amazing somehow... When they observe that the shoe in Mexico is a left shoe, they instantly know, faster than light speed away... That the other "entangled" shoe is a right side position shoe. BOOM! Mind blown right!?
     
  20. neonspectraltoast

    neonspectraltoast Senior Member

    Oh, scientists do it? It must be stupid, then. If they ever build a lightsaber, remind me how boring it is so I don't get carried away thinking there's a mystical Force governing the universe. I wouldn't want there to be any sense that there is anything more to life than how intelligent and boring human beings are.

    That's actually not how it works. If you influence one particle you influence another over vast, vast distances.

    It would be even more amazing if by untying a shoe in Mexico you could untie the shoe on the Moon, 'cause that's how it works.
     

Share This Page