Interest in Quantum Consciousness
by MikeGeneThe following essay was written by Thought Provoker and the views/arguments contained within do not necessarily reflect the views of Mike Gene. Mike Gene hosts such essays simply to provoke thought and promote discussion and communication.
My daughter is well on her way to getting a PhD. She casually mentioned my interest in Libet and Orch OR to one of her mentors. He asked for more informations. Here is the letter I am sending to him…
Dr. [name withheld],
[My daughter] tells me that you are interested in hearing about the subject of my internet debates concerning the timing and source of consciousness. If you want to simply jump into the deep-end of the pool take a look at www.hameroff.com and start reading Dr. Hameroff's numerous publications. However, if you want a less abrupt introduction, I will attempt to give you the benefit of my general understanding.
Dr. Hameroff is a sixty year old Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona where he is the Director for the Center of Consciousness Studies. Dr. Hameroff indicates he has always been interested in the study of consciousness and that was the main reason he studied Anesthesiology. He figured the best way to understand consciousness was to study the details of what causes unconsciousness. It was this line of investigation that led him to suspect that the microtubules in neurons had a key role in consciousness.
In 1982 Stuart Hameroff, along with R.C. Watt, presented a paper titled Information Processing in Microtubules where they laid out how the tubulin dimers that make up microtubules can act like on/off bits in a computer. This wasn't exactly a new idea, other people had considered the possibility that a cell's cytoskeleton (which is made up of microtubules and actin filaments) might act as a kind of nervous system for the cell. However, Hameroff was going beyond that to suggest that not only does anesthesia disrupt the tubulin processing but that the processing is quantum, not classical. Bluntly put, Hameroff is suggesting that each neuron contain multiple quantum computers working in concert to give rise to consciousness.
Hameroff has an anesthesiologist background; Watt came from the department of Electrical Engineering. These are hardly the credentials needed to be taken seriously in the field of Quantum Mechanics. Besides, all they were saying at this point was that the brain has significantly more processing power than generally thought. Instead of a processing bit per neuron, Hameroff was suggesting a processing bit per tubulin.
Enter Sir Roger Penrose.
Roger Penrose worked with Stephen Hawking (the guy in the wheelchair) in mathematically modeling Black Holes. Penrose and Hawking are peers from different schools of thought that trace their roots back to Bohr and Einstein. Penrose and Hawking have jointly written at least one book and held a debate in 1994 which was hyped as the modern equivalent of the old Bohr/Einstein debates. The debate was generally about what are fundamentally real foundations verses what are simply observations yet to be understood.
In Quantum Mechanics several things show a dual nature. For example, light can be thought of as both photons and light waves. There are many more startling examples of this, including a single particle being in two places at one time. There are mathematical models that explain this and modern physicists no longer hesitate of talk about superposition (two quantum states existing simultaneously) and Qbits (quantum bits that are both "1" and "0").
Bohr, Penrose and most adherents to the Copenhagen School generally consider the dual nature to be fundamentally real. The term "waveform collapse" is used to describe the event of multiple states resulting in a single observed state. The general thought was that the collapse was caused by the observation and that the final state was random (constrained by permissible states). Einstein and Schrödinger were on the opposite side of the debate. It was in this context that Einstein exclaimed "God doesn't play dice." Einstein was convinced that, like Newtonian Physics, Quantum Physics had to be deterministic. The general argument was that a more complete quantum theory would be figured out someday and it would provide a logical explanation for the observations. Schrödinger posed a thought experiment for the purpose of challenging the Copenhagen School. If a cat's life was directly tied to a quantum effect in superposition, would the cat be both alive and dead at the same time? Schrödinger eventually regretted posing this intractable puzzle since it plagued physicists on both sides. Schrödinger's Cat was very much a relevant topic in the 1994 Penrose/Hawking debate (although Hawking tried to downplay its significance).
Penrose has developed a Copenhagen like hypothesis he calls Objective Reduction. However, rather than multiple waveforms collapsing he suggests that the universe is one large wavefunction in four dimensional space-time and quantum states are exposed parts of this single wavefunction.
By now, you might be asking what all of this has to do with consciousness.
While Penrose worked out quite a bit including gravity and general quantum theory, there was still the "measurement problem" of Quantum Mechanics. This plays into the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment. Penrose had an answer to why large things don't appear in superposition (the more the mass, the faster to Objective Reduction (OR) due to gravitational energy), but he didn't have a ready answer for why observations caused OR. What interconnects observations to Quantum Mechanics? Could it be the consciousness of the observer?
Penrose is very much the mathematician. Not only does he mathematically model Black Holes, he solves extremely difficult math puzzles in his spare time. In the 1960's it was mathematically proven that you could tile a surface without having the pattern ever repeat. They called it non-periodic tiling and the race was on to figure out who could find the least number of tile shapes that could be used for non-periodic tiling. The number started out with over 20,000 tile shapes which was quickly reduced to 104. In 1974, Penrose had reduced it to six tile shapes. Shortly after that, he identified non-periodic tiling was possible with just two tile shapes.
Penrose maintains that his solution to non-periodic tiling could not have been found via an algorithmic process. Ergo, his brain is not an algorithmic computer. He formalized this by claiming strict algorithmic artificial intelligence (Strong AI) was impossible. Penrose wrote several books that revolved around this theme. He also generalized that the quantum wavefunction is not algorithmic. So even if "God doesn't play dice" quantum effects are not deterministic, in the sense that it isn't a lack of knowledge that is preventing us from being able to fully characterize them, quantum effects can't be fully characterized, period.
Since Quantum Mechanics is the only known source of non-algorithmic information, Penrose suggested that consciousness must be directly linked to Quantum Mechanics. Penrose wrote The Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind. These books caught the attention of Dr. Hameroff and in 1992, the two of them started collaborating on a model of consciousness based on Orchestrated Objective Reduction.
An interesting piece of evidence Penrose offers is that the timing of OR events is based on the gravitational energy inherent in mass. According to Penrose, it follows the equation of E=h/t where E is the gravitational energy and h is plank's constant and t is the time of self OR collapse. It turns out that the mass of roughly 1011 tublins would result in OR event taking 25 ms. This would correspond to the gamma brain wave frequency of 40 Hz which Hameroff offers corresponds well with attention and consciousness.
This completed the circle. Conscious observations cause quantum OR because consciousness is directly connected with the orchestrated, interconnected quantum effects that occur in our universe.
Enter Benjamin Libet and his consciousness studies.
You may have heard of Libet since his experimental data has caused quite a bit of a shake up in your field. As far as I know, Libet was never directly involved with either Penrose or Hameroff. However, Hameroff has referenced Libet's work quite a bit. If I understand correctly, Libet has shown there is up to a half a second of "readiness potential" prior to a conscious recognition of an event. I understand this was very unexpected to Libet and others in the field. The delay is significant enough to make it difficult to explain everyday activities like hitting a fast ball or playing professional tennis.
One explanation is to say that we fool ourselves into thinking we are making conscious decisions in these circumstances. Another is to argue that we can consciously veto automated responses. I won't dwell on all the alternatives because I am sure you have better access to the appropriate information than I. Hameroff offers that the Orch OR model provides a simple answer. The "readiness potential" of consciousness is direct evidence of quantum processing in action. Orchestrated quantum effects are all in super position sorting out all the possibilities until that system collapses into the final state and a final conscious decision.
I recommend Hameroff's paper Consciousness, neurobiology and quantum mechanics: The case for a connection. It provides a fairly readable explanation of all of this.
Arguments against Orch OR generally focus on Penrose's timing calculations and the perceived difficulties of having quantum processing occurring in a warm, wet and noisy environment like a brain. Penrose's timing explanation makes sense to me and most of the arguments against it are either simple incredulity or suggesting it isn't universally accepted (which it isn't). Penrose has indicated that while he may have doubts about microtubules, he is convinced that he is right on the basic physics. I am not in a position to effectively argue that Penrose doesn't know what he is talking about. Dr. Hameroff provides his rebuttals of the warm, wet brain argument in the above paper and in other papers available on his web site.
As you can imagine, this sounds too close to mysticism for a lot of people. In fact, the route I took to come to understand occured while I was chasing down the details of the religiously motivation Intelligent Design Movement. If you didn't hear about it, there was a trial in Dover Pennsylvania late in 2005. It centered on the actions of a religiously motivated school board and a book that was clearly about creation science relabeled as "Intelligent Design". I found the trial interesting and was intrigued by hints of the possibility that a scientific argument could be made in support of Intelligent Design. Since I like a good argument and this had learning potential, I investigated further.
I ended up at a web site called www.TelicThoughts.com. While a lot of the blog's participants are clearly religiously motivated the blog is above average in tolerating contrary, anti-religious opinions like mine. One of the blog's moderators steered me to Hameroff's web site.
If you go to dfcord.blogspot.com you will find this letter (with names removed) posted with links to the various web sites and other details I mentioned.
Feel free to leave anonymous comments or questions there. Alternatively, you can contact me at dfcord (at) hotmail.com.
Thank you for your interest, I hope this has been informative.
Regards,
[name withheld]
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Thank you Mike.
I welcome any questions anyone might have on this.
(other than the identities of the people involved)
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 2, 2008 @ 10:19 am
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 am
"As you can imagine, this sounds too close to mysticism for a lot of people."
Heh, heh. Who's afraid of the big bad mysticism? People are funny.
At any rate, TP's letter is concise and well written.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 2, 2008 @ 11:54 am
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Thank You Kornbelt
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 2, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
TP, I notice you attract many more responses when commenters are free to verbally assault you.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Hi Bradford,
I take it you have been listening in on my AtBC thread.
Here is the link for anyone else who wants to listen in.
It is a little rough, but not as bad as I had expected. For a while there, I thought they were going to pull the plug on me.
If the worse thing I have to put up with is a discussion as to whether or not I meet the diagnosable requirement for narcissism, I'm not too worried.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 2, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
TP
Good Lord! That was ten minutes of my life that I will never get back.
Comment by chunkdz — February 2, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Thought Provoker, thanks for all the elbow grease you've put into this synopsis. It helps me get the lay of the land for Orch OR, and gives me hope that I might understand it if I keep working at it.
I do sense some promise there…but I also hafta admit that I don't believe I have a good grasp of the science.
I'll keep trying, and count on you to keep communicating.
Comment by Lutepisc — February 2, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Ouch! In the full of oneself category, that crew certainly gives you a run for your money.
Double ouch; hey, I resemble that remark! [AtBC] a greater bunch of asshats I've never seen. Having fun, TP?
Took me twenty! I need a shower.
Comment by Rob R. — February 2, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Which reminds me of a question forTP… What's in it for you? Follow-up: What are you trying to convince them of?
Comment by Joy — February 2, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
It was a trip to the dark side. They personify misery. What happens after the bar closes? Alcohol is a depressant is it not?
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Hi Joy,
My motivation has multiple aspects.
1. Test the strength of my own convictions.
2. Motivate myself to verify and reverify things I think I understand.
3. Provoke independent thinking
4. Reinforce the concept they will lose a Culture War standoff.
5. Engage in a little testosterone induced activity.
Joy, I would think by now you would recognize stupid male chest thumping.
Besides, it was the fair thing to do after the "Is this Inference Sound, thread".
And I did learn a few things.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 2, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:03 am
Here is the updated reader's digest version…
1. 4D spacetime geometry is more realistic that Euclidian Geometry
- Minkowskian geometry for flat
- Schwarzschild geometry for curved
- True 4D, not 3D plus time (no absolute time)
- Experimentally shown, GPS satelites constantly reconfirm it
2. There are different path lengths in 4D spacetime
- Twin Paradox is a geometry problem, one twin takes a short cut
- Path length for light is always ZERO
- Entire universe is directly interconnected via null cone
- Other names for null cone is "light cone" or "null geodesic"
3. Quantum Entanglement occurs in spacetime geometry
- Same reality, same geometry
- Quantum information can't result in causal paradox
- Time travel is not a problem for Quantum information flow
- All quantum effects are interconnected in space and time
- Explains quantum experimental results
4. Consciousness is directly connected to all quantum effects
- Quantum Mechanics is source of non-algorithmic processing
- Evidence exists that life uses quantum processing
- Provides explaination for quantum 'measurement problem'
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 3, 2008 @ 1:03 am
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:32 am
Hi TP,
The fourth dimension being time, yes?
What does 'no absolute time' mean here in the context of a 'more realistic 4D space/time geometry'? The satellites confirm time dilation, yes? How/why are you linking them?
So, time is simply a measurement of distance[s travelled]? I always get lost right about here [definition of time and/or causality]. A paradox, I aways like to think, means a fundamental error in our thinking, hypotheses and/or theories. In other words, paradoxes don't exist other then as a way to tell us we've got something (fundamentally) wrong. Either that or time is real and it runs straight and forward, and only that way. (unless something has no mass… I guess,. . . see already lost.)
Two places at the same time and instantanious communication (regardless of distance) are paradoxes, no?
Forward only though (for anything with mass), yes? How does this explain anything with respect to origins (at any level)?
Since the inflationary epoch as I understand it. But, what does that mean/tell us?
How so? Is this where retrocausality is inferred? How does that work?
Regards.
Comment by Rob R. — February 3, 2008 @ 2:32 am
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
One of the key elements of the Hameroff/Penrose hypothesis is that there is quantum coherence in the microtubules of neurons and glia. Most scientists have been skeptical about this because in the warm, wet environment of the brain it is thought that decoherence would be high, preventing such coherence.
However, I just ran across a report on research into photosynthesis from last year that may add some credence to this. These scientitist are looking for explanations for the near perfect conversion of light into chemical energy found in photosynthesis. What they found in their experiment was the presence of quantum coherence for longer periods than would be expected.
Now these experiments were done at low temperatures where decoherence is minimized. They plan to raise the temperature to see what happens. If, however, coherence at higher temperatures is maintained, it might mean that there can be quantum coherence in organic systems. If this coherence turns out to be the reason for the high efficiency in photosynthesis, since it occurs in plants, it would be an example of quantum coherence in organic systems at environmental temperatures.
Comment by Steve Petermann — February 3, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
"Alcohol is a depressant is it not?"
It's definitely a sedative for me. But I've never ever been depressed while drinking.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 3, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Hi Rob R,
Thank you for your interest.
You asked…
Yes, but let me provide some further explanation.
In 2D the path length meets the following…
dl^2 = dx^2 + dy^2
Where dl is the a path segment and dx and dy are the coordinate segments in the "x" dimension and the "y" dimension. It can be thought of as another way of expressing the Pythagorean theorem.
In 3D the path length meets…
dl^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
In 4D the path length meets…
dl^2 = dw^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
Nothing overly tricky so far. The tricky part is accepting that there is nothing special about w, x, y and z being complex numbers. Complex numbers are readily used by mathematicians, physicists and even electrical engineers. As an electrical engineer I see a sine wave as having a constant value with real and imaginary components which rotates. What is thought of as the real component and what is thought of as the imaginary component is mostly arbitrary. The sine wave's imaginary component is a cosine wave (just a shifted sine wave).
What makes the time dimension different from the space dimensions is the orientation of the complex components. Time could be thought of as having a SQRT(-1) factor. If dw = SQRT(-1) * dt then the path length becomes…
dl^2 = - dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
The SQRT(-1) squared is -1. Good so far?
Even here you can see that traveling at the speed of light through spacetime results in a dl of ZERO. However, things become easier to reconcile with experimental data if you orient the complex components so that time has the real component. In this orientation the space dimensions have the SQRT(-1) factor.
By convention (at least Roger Penrose's convention) we use "ds" in the place of "dl" when we do this. The result is…
ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
Where ds corresponds to the path lengths through spacetime that are measurable by a clock. In 4D spacetime, clocks are the equivalent of a distance measuring device (like the wheel policemen use to measure skid marks).
Notice that we are dealing with time as just another dimension. Would you be confused by the thought that there was no absolute "Z" value that all things shared? Most people think of spacetime as simply 3D Euclidean geometry clicking by frame by frame like a movie. I'm suggesting that isn't true 4D geometry and doesn't match experimental data.
The GPS satellites confirm time dilation, but which clock exhibits the dilation?
The GPS clock or the earth bound clock?
It is obvious that a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is moving faster than a earth-bound clock in relationship to a non-rotating earth frame of reference. Think of the merry-go-round. The horses on the outside track move faster.
So the GPS clock would be the equivalent of the traveling twin in the Twin Paradox who doesn't age as quickly. The GPS clock should be running slower.
But it doesn't. It is the earth bound clock that runs slower.
Why? Because the curvature in the 4D spacetime geometry is greater for the earth bound clock sitting further inside the gravity well than the GPS clock.
While it is hard to show this in the Cartesian coordinates of (t, x, y and z) it could be done. But converting it to Polar coordinates makes it so much easier. When converted to polar coordinates the previous equation becomes"¦
ds^2 = dt^2 - (r*dθ)^2 - (r*sinθ*dΦ)^2 - dr^2
Again, this is something that is more readily accepted by someone with an Electrical Engineering background. Converting from Cartesian to Polar and back again is something I have had to do countless times in college and at work.
Now adding the curvature parameter Gtt results in…
ds^2 = Gtt*dt^2 - (r*dθ)^2 - (r*sinθ*dΦ)^2 - dr^2 / Gtt
The sharper the curve, the smaller the Gtt.
And using insight provided by Schwarzschild and others…
Gtt = 1 - 2 * G * M / r
"¦where M is mass and G is the gravitational constant.
With this equation we know the path taken through 4D spacetime by both clocks. Comparing the clocks on the GPS satellites with the clocks on Earth constantly confirm the 4D geometry of spacetime.
The "paradox" in the Twin's Paradox is in choosing which frame of reference to use. If you use the homebound twin's reference, the answer is that the traveling twin experiences time dilation. But if you use the traveling twin's reference, the simple answer would be the opposite. Thus the paradox. If the frame of reference isn't supposed to matter, why does it?
Now, Keiths and Zachiel and a whole lot of other people will provide lots of handwaving explanations that include references to acceleration and/or changing inertial frames. However, I consider this just a reluctance to give up on Newtonian Physics and its Euclidean geometry way of looking at things.
The answer is simple, with no paradox. The traveling twin takes a shortcut in 4D spacetime.
When you think you are sitting still, you are actually moving in time dimension.
If you think you are sitting still in an area of curved space, you travel a slight dz (down) for every dt. That is why you are a little like the traveling twin even though you are Earth-bound.
It's all just geometry. Granted, it's four dimensional, complex geometry, but still just geometry.
These things are paradoxes to the classical way of thinking. Going forward and backwards in the dimension of time is no more paradoxical that being able to go North and South, it all just geometry.
Classical information and classical communication is what appears to be restricted. The ability to kill your ancestors presents an intractable logic problem. We, therefore, presume that isn't possible which I agree is appropriate.
But in QM experiments it looks like these types of causal paradoxes can't happen. The reason we think Quantum Physics is "weird" is because we try to look at it in classical terms. Are you thinking particles are solid? Why? There is no problem with waves being in multiple places at the same time. And when you recognize the geometry of our universe provides for path lengths of ZERO then the idea that all quantum effects are directly interconnected isn't a problem.
The problem is our trying to reconcile it with our "weird" view that matter is solid and we exist in a 3 dimensional universe where time is absolute and the same for all things.
Quantum Mechanics makes perfect sense, it is the macro world that is "weird".
In you other comments, I see you are equating "quantum information" with classical information. In his book Penrose indicated his concern that many people get confused on that, I think I need to follow his lead. "Quantum entanglement" is what I mean. "Quanglement" is the term Penrose uses.
Yes, Quanglement occurs both forward and backwards in time along with between any to points in the universe.
Let me stop here because I think my explanations may cause you to modify your remaining questions.
If not, please ask them again.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 3, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
TP:
Interesting TP. Would it be accurate to state that classical roughly correlates to the macro-world and QM to the world of the sub-atomic? Are you applying QM as an explanation for the origin of novel biological systems (life itself?) precisely because causality can be traced to levels at which QM is applicable?
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Hi Bradford,
Depending on the definition of "life" I'm of the opinion that if life is considered to be a non-algorithmic process then life inherently depends on the only source of non-algorithmic processing available, Quantum Mechanics.
What defines "classical" verses quantum is destined to become one of the big questions, if it isn't already. Is concept of "classical time" all in our minds? Is it just a result of living consciousness?
Fullerines (i.e. BuckyBalls) demonstrate superposition so, no, I would not limit quantum effects to the sub-atomic. BuckyBalls are large molecules made up of 60 or 70 carbon atoms.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 3, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
The reason definitions of life are not a great concern to me is that the data needed to establish a biological case for life can be made irrespective of one's definition. For example, any chemical trail must begin with establishing a plausible reason why certain organic chemicals would be present and what type of reactions would result in a subsequent causal trail leading eventually to the cellular life found on earth. Show me the trail is the operative phrase.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
We both know you wouldn't be satisfied with being shown the trail.
"Show me the evidence" is the operative phrase.
I have been asking you to show me your trail since I have been posting to Telic Thoughts.
The QM trail I am pointing to extends in both directions, forward and backward in time.
I suggest Mike Gene's Front Loading isn't limited to explaining just the past. Unless you think here and now is the ultimate culmination of the universal design, there is more.
When it is realized that all quantum effects are interconnected both in space and time for all space and all time, it becomes obvious the trail exists as a whole, not something dynamically created.
Whether the trail comes from God or just a universe being consistent with itself is a philosophical question we probably will never know. And you know my opinon on NOMA.
So if "show me the trail" is the operative phrase, that I can do.
Proving it is a whole different matter.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 3, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Show me the trail is the operative phrase.
Not so. There is no trail to follow and some critics get upset with me for pointing this out.
Fine. Show me the evidence for a causal trail.
As I've often said, the trail to life has not been pinned down to a process. Let's be honest about this and leave the question open rather than artificially closed to options.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Let's be honest about this and note that it appears you would rather leave the question open so people can freely continue to praise God for his divine gift of life.
(note to listening audience, this is from the banner on Bradford's web site)
Bradford, it's not my intent to be mean. It is my intent to help you be honest with yourself.
My way of showing you respect.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 3, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Let's be honest about this and leave the question open rather than artificially closed to options.
TP, God does not need my help on this. The question is scientifically open because we have not pinned down answers.
Good quote TP. You have successfully shown that I have metaphysical inclinations not reducible to empircal evidence. The ill kept secret is that we all do.
I am honest about both my empirically and non-empirically based beliefs. I do not pretend to be able to subject God to a laboratory analysis. OTOH, it is disingenuous to pretend that science has explained how the universe and life on earth came about in accordance with the tenets of philosophical materialism.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Hi Bradford,
Actually I had quoted your banner more for the words than an indication you were relying on the Bible.
The words seem to indicate a compelling need to find answers which I would consider the opposite of your stated desire to "leave the question open".
Finding the trail of life is easy. We are standing in the middle of it. It leads in both directions past and future.
Shall we try to figure out some possible answers by posing scientific hypotheses?
I have one, it involves recognizing the interconnectedness of all quantum effects.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 4, 2008 @ 12:20 am
February 4th, 2008 at 1:45 am
TP:
My desire to leave the scientific question of life's origin open is based on lack of conclusive evidence favoring a particular theory. Given that situation leaving doors open is consistent with the spirit of free inquiry. Free inquiry should entail an open mind toward quantum effects. I do not sense that openness at AtBC. That's a very telling statement about many who critique ID.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2008 @ 1:45 am
February 4th, 2008 at 4:41 am
TP,
The two questions are unrelated, TP. People who accept the possibility of a naturalistic explanation of an OoL continue to praise God for the gift of life. The idea of an agent using (why, even creating) a natural process to achieve an end isn't exactly controversial. Finding out the cellular mechanisms of reproduction and birth didn't exactly result in theists shrugging their shoulders and regarding the process as unimportant and unrelated to God.
Whenever you do the 'TP, ministering in the name of truth and kindness' routine, I don't think I'm the only one who gets a kick out of the sheer gall. It's right up there with 'promote independent thought' on the mission statement, a line which gets followed up with passive-aggressive denunciations when people's thoughts stray off in the independent-yet-undesired direction.
But I have to credit your continued awareness-raising of QM, and the Orch-OR theory of mind in particular. After all, as a believer, I have to admire what amounts to a scientific argument for an immaterial soul. Proof of that means the culture war ends overnight.
Comment by nullasalus — February 4, 2008 @ 4:41 am
February 4th, 2008 at 8:36 am
TP, how does this show that Bradford is "relying on the Bible?" If the quote were from Macbeth, would that mean he is "relying on Shakespeare?"
I actually think it's a rather pithy quotation. Job is demanding that God give an accounting of himself, and God answers from the midst of a whirlwind. The answer is meant to clarify for Job who is "the knower" and who "the known." From the midst of the whirlwind, God turns the tables on Job, saying something like, "I make the rules; you play the game."
Job's character is unaware of his ignorance, and portrays the hubris of those who believe they are the ultimate judges and final arbiters of what is fair, proper and just in the world. God's response from the whirlwind is as jarring to us today as it was in Job's time.
It's just a little tidbit which was written about 2800 years ago. Take it or leave it. (I'm guessing you'll leave it, but why not try to understand it first?)
Comment by Lutepisc — February 4, 2008 @ 8:36 am
February 4th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Oops. Looks like I misunderstood your words, TP! Sorry!
And…well…nevermind.
Comment by Lutepisc — February 4, 2008 @ 8:42 am
February 4th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
I agree that I don't get too many accusations of being overly timid. Quite the opposite, I tend to quickly get labeled arrogant by people on both sides. I'm going to argue with you if you are suggesting that my encouraging/provoking people to clearly and ethically state their positions and defend them as some sort of passive denunciation.
I disagree with Walt Brown (www.creationscience.com) but I respect his honest efforts of independent thought. I disagree with Richard Dawkins' NOMA position, but I respect his no-nonsense arguments against it.
Are you under the mistaken impression that I WANT Orch OR to be true?
What I would want to be true is something that unquestionably takes the wind out of the sails of most organized religions.
However, even if that is the case, organized religion is so prevalent that if it comes down to a choice between believing in the divine or accepting scientific truth, the scientific truth will be discarded. Violently, if necessary (as it was in the past).
So, whether it is true or not, I argue for Orch OR because I don't like the ramifications of a Culture War stalemate.
Is that passive-aggressive enough for you?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 4, 2008 @ 8:45 am
February 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
TP
What is he thinking anesthesia is? The brain keeps going under anesthetic to some extent; how could that be if the tubulin processing is disrupted? Is he saying that under anesthetic the quantum computers stop, but the classical brain (i.e., processing via the standard model) keeps going, and this is sufficient for the very basic functions?
This leads me to wonder if the classical brain is still the model for, say, the rat or ant brain. Do you, Penrose and/or Hameroff consider them to be conscious? How do their microtubules compare to human microtubules (indeed, how do the microtubules in neurons compare to microtubules in other cells)?
In this model, does an organism need a certain "critical mass" of microtubules to be conscious? Is a single microtubule, or a single neuron (with several quantum computers of course), enough to be conscious, or is this an emergent property perhaps? When does an embryo/foetus/baby become conscious?
I do not get the connect between quantum computing in microtubules and the "mysticism". I am happy with the one big wave function idea; it seems very likely to me. Why should that have any trail to God? Why should they be any special connection to quantum computers in neural microtubules that there is not in, say, a cup of hot tea?
Comment by The Pixie — February 4, 2008 @ 10:02 am
February 4th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Hi Pixie,
Thank you for your interest.
You asked…
It's obvious that Dr. Hameroff suspects consciousness is something more than an emergent property of an organic processing organ (i.e. the brain). You can talk to Joy about the Great Zombie debate for details. This should mean that it would be possible for a brain to continue to function but lack consciousness. This pretty much describes the effect of the kinds of anesthesia Hameroff studied and why he studies them.
Depending on your how you define consciousness, Hameroff not only thinks rats and ants are conscious, he suspects single celled organisms might be conscious too.
Hameroff was once asked "Are we to believe that carrots and rutabagas also exhibit quantum computation, or are conscious?"
His answer was, "No, we are not. Plant cells have very few microtubules (very small E); whether they have quantum isolation and quantum computation is unknown. But assuming they did, by E=h/t a carrot or rutabaga (small E, long t) might have a single, very low intensity conscious moment once per month or so." link
But like I said, this gets into how you define consciousness. There is a big difference between being minimally aware verses having the ability to question the meaning of life. I think of consciousness as being aware.
I think this is a good question.
If I understand you correctly, my usual answer is that even if a rock (or a cup of tea) is interconnected with the whole of the universe, there isn't much it can do about it. Living things are more useful for fulfilling a universal purpose if such a purpose exists. My modest philosophical suggestion is that a possible purpose of the universe is to do whatever it takes to exist and be consistent with itself.
As for God…
If God is a timeless being his view of the universe would be holistic. He would see the entire 4D spacetime geometry for all space and all time. God would create one big wavefunction "…And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Gen1:31.
And to this engineer "good" means an invention that is complete and logical (i.e. is consistent with itself).
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 4, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Hi TP,
You're welcome and thanks to you too, for the attempt at a 'for dummies' version. I'm not even at the Readers Digest level yet.
I'm with ya so far, I think. So time in your/their model isn't really time at all. Isn't that simply taking the "time" out of space/time? So there is no such thing (in your model) as "time travel" (in any direction) simply shortcuts through space?
So the GPS satellite takes a (geometric) short-cut through space or the earth bound clock is running slower? Hope that question makes some sense.
Because for the home-bound twin the short-cut was a very long one instead?
Off Topic: I've the impression that keiths isn't welcome at TT any longer. Neither is Stunney. Not that I have any say in such matters, but both of them were big reasons why I've enjoyed this blog so much, and I'd love to see them both invited back. Who's with me! Okay back to our regularly scheduled program….
But the observations/observers change with respect to those 'changing inertial frames,' no? Is it really fair to reduce those issues to mere hand waving?
But where did the travelling twin go? Some sort of sub-space? As I've said/am seeing this, it wasn't a short-cut for the home-bound twin. Did the travelling twin travel (forward) through time?
My head hurts.
So there's no/never such a thing as an inertial frame of reference (t, 0, 0, 0) outside of making an example/argument easier to understand/or compute. Correct?
North/South/East/West/Up/Down are all places I can go to. Tangible things. The future hasn't happened yet. The past is gone…. there's nothing there (stored?) for me to visit. Perhaps at a point in time in the very distant past just prior to the inflationary epoch, when the entire universe was the size of a basketball and space and time were infinitely warped, this was true. But, now? How?
How do you know this and/or why are you so comfortable with it? If these waves have little or no mass isn't just as likely that they travel at speeds which make them appear to be in several places at once but are simply travelling so fast that they confuse our ability to measure/detect them?
Now that's a weird statement. The macro world makes sense (mostly) and works with law-like non-paradoxical regularity… you… you, quantum quack.
If you're waiting on me, you're backing up. Please, continue at your leisure. Others here, I'm sure, will be able to keep up much better than I. I'll keep chugging along, trying my best - the little layman train that could.
Thanks again.
Comment by Rob R. — February 4, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
PS TP,
The Dr. you're writing to is a physicist, correct. Have you had any feedback from him on this yet? Also, In what field, if you don't mind my asking, is your daughter doing here PhD?
Regards.
Comment by Rob R. — February 4, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Where is stunney? TT is pretty patient. I still see Ed Darrel post occassionally so I don't think there was any request from TT toward Keiths or stunney to not come back. But I could be wrong.
Comment by Doug — February 4, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Hi Rob R,
I'm at work so I will just handle the off topic stuff leaving the meat for when I have more time.
My daughter and her mentor are in the field of psychology, not physics.
No, my "handwaving" remark was not fair. It was intentionally provocative. Keiths reacted accordingly on AtBC. I don't know if Zachriel has seen it yet.
As far as your head hurting, join the club. It is a good indication you are on the right track.
And yes, calling me a "quantum quack" is reasonably justified (especially since I call myself that).
More later.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 4, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Hi TP
You talk about microtubules in carrots. Are they different in nature to microtubules in humans, or just in number? Has anyone looked at the differents between human microtubules and chimp microtubules? Can we isolate human microtubules and use them as quantum computers our selves? Penrose and Hameroff are respected scientists, I believe, so I wonder what research are they doing to support this theory.
I thought that to, but with so many threads recently about the evils of asking for definitions I thought better of asking.
Okay, though I see nothing in your quantum claims that would connect into that.
That may be, but again I see nothing in quantum computing with microtubules that makes that more or less likely.
Comment by The Pixie — February 4, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
TP wrote:
Could you give us an example of something that is not consistent with itself?
Comment by valerie — February 4, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
I'm getting behind on my responses. Please be patient, I am trying to take them in the order posted.
Hi Rob R,
Actually, I am arguing that time is IN space/time, it is other people trying to take time "out" by keeping it separated from space/time geometry. Treating time as just one of the four dimensions is truly accepting 4D space/time as reality, instead of thinking reality is some modified three dimensional Euclidean geometry with time being separate.
Your question makes sense but it appears you are confusing fast and slow clocks (understandable).
Because the traveling twin's path length is shorter (takes a short cut) the traveling twin doesn't age as fast. The traveling twin's clock runs slower compared to the other twin's clock (whose path is longer).
In the GPS situation, the earth bound clock's path is shorter (because space is curved) and, therefore, the earth bound clock runs slower.
A clock floating stationary in space away from any gravity wells travels straight along the time dimension. This clock would be traveling the longest spacetime path. No other clock will run faster. I think this is what has been referred to as "proper time".
The clock in the GPS satellite is closer to the ideal free floating clock than the clock on Earth, Therefore, the GPS clock runs closer to "proper time". The Earth-bound clock ages slower (like the traveling twin taking the shorter path). Therefore, the Earth-bound clock runs slower that the satellite clock.
Yes, the space/time path taken by the home-bound twin is longer than the traveling twin. The Twin Paradox assumes flat geometry and, therefore, ignores the curved space of gravity wells.
This isn't like falling through a wormhole. It is about measuring path lengths in 4D space time. The longer the path, the more time that shows on the path measuring device (a clock) the older the twin is. The twins start out together at one point in 4D spacetime and meet again at another point in 4D spacetime. When they compare their measuring devices one twin notes the path he traveled between the two points was shorter.
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
Is it my fault we are handicapped in this "weird" macro world? When we explore the implications a little deeper (which I hope we do), it becomes apparent that the entire giant wavefunction is fixed, not dynamic.
Think of a Mandelbrot Set. As you zoom in it looks dynamic, but it isn't. It is a fixed function (actually it is a rather simple one dimensional function that uses complex numbers).
Here is a video of a Mandelbrot Set claimed to be the size of the known universe.
That was a good observation. Joy has dropped the hint that there might be only one photon in the entire universe. It just gets around a lot.
What makes you think I am "comfortable with it" My head hurts over this too.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 4, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
TP: When you think you are sitting still, you are actually moving in time dimension.
Me: So there's no/never such a thing as an inertial frame of reference (t, 0, 0, 0) outside of making an example/argument easier to understand/or compute. Correct?
Not terribly important (or cogent either, I suppose) but I was trying to understand if what you were saying is 'there's really no such thing as sitting still, it's just a way to simplify an example (e.g., the home bound twin in the Twin Paradox isn't still but it makes for an easier (less maths involved) explanation of the issues involved.'
Any better?
One other small point re: my own ignorance of the nuances:
I thought the Twin Paradox was dealt with by General Relativity not Special Relativity. The latter assuming (FAPP?) a flat space/time geometry, the former treating space/time as curved as a result of massive objects.
No?
Comment by Rob R. — February 4, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
TP,
I've obviously argued with people on TT before. I regard that as ultimately unfortunate - I'd prefer to discuss rather than argue any day of the week. But I have a feeling you either don't get what riles people, or you do but think you can textually jiu-jitsu it away. 'Encouraging people to clearly and ethically state their positions'? It's not just that you accuse people of lying and dishonesty, but your little would-be-Freud game of pretending to psychoanalyze them. You casually, innocently mention how, oh my goodness, what that person-you-disagree-with said is rather comparable to 'whack those damn monkey-gooks' WW2-era racism - it's a shame how SOME people think this way. You accuse Bradford not only of being fundamentally dishonest, but also in essence mentally ill - he's lying to himself, you see, and you just want to counsel him through the delusion. Because that's just how nice you are.
By all means, argue that if you want. But what you may think is a brilliant debating tactic is really just a sad display.
You know, there was a time where some people, dedicated to what they thought was scientific truth, were willing to stand up to the nay-sayers and finally fight back. They were eager to make a stand to the last in order to bring about a world that was in accordance with the primacy of science-driven social order, and the response was they were attacked and denounced by their truth-deniers through any means necessary, with the goal of eradicating their commitment to scientific truth. The result was, of course, their losing World War II.
(What a load, eh? It's a transparent insult, couched in dramatization. And if you came back and yelled at me for likening you to the nazis, I'd technically be able to say that I certainly did not - I referred to some people, no one in particular. Why, I merely thought the comparison was pertinent - I want only to dissuade people from such single-minded hate. But everyone would know the game I was playing. Take this lesson to heart, TP.)
and
Alright. So this isn't about you wanting Orch-OR to be true. You're just arguing for it, whether it's true or not, for political reasons. And you'd by far prefer a 'truth' that more than anything else would harm your political enemies.
Can we finally put the 'promote independent thought' canard to a rest now? Because, really, it's true only in the sense that a commercial for a presidential candidate is 'promoting independent thought'. And I say this as someone who's freaking interested in Orch-OR and quantum questions in general.
Comment by nullasalus — February 4, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Hey TP
Would this include very improbable events like the resurrection of a certain Jewish rabbi If that is what was required for the universe to be consistent with itself?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 4, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Hi Pixie,
Thanks for the comment. Sorry I took so long in responding. You got me looking into recent research and I got distracted.
You wrote…
My understanding is that the main difference is in number, but there are people here who are better at answering that than I. I wouldn't think there is any difference between human microtubules and chimp microtubules.
Some promising experiments have been done the provide evidence of non-local "entanglement" between neuron networks. Other than that, direct experimental data for quantum microtubules has yet to materialize.
Penrose is over 70, Hameroff is over 60. There are plenty of eager you scientists attempting experiments. If this was easy, there wouldn't be a debate.
I'm not sure how soon this will all come together, but if and when it does, it should make for some interesting repercussions.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 12:13 am
February 5th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Hi Valerie,
You asked…
Sure…
I don't know the Truth, therefore all my statements are inaccurate.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 12:17 am
February 5th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Hi Rob R,
You wrote…
In think the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle means nothing can stay still because if it did, we would know both it's position and its momentum.
But, I have actually given this some thought. I thought what you could do to get close to standing still in space/time is vibrate at light speed. But when I thought about the shortening path lengths, that would mean standing still in spacetime meant you would be everywhere and everywhen all at once.
"Blessed are the pure in heart…"
Are you trying to provoke me to provoke Keiths and Zachriel some more?
That was a major part of our previous argument. I felt Special Relativity was a stop gap explanation until a more complete explanation came along to replace it. General Relativity could be thought of as that more complete explanation. That is when the semantic arguments start. Let me just answer your specific question with a definite "maybe".
What I can say is that Sir Roger Penrose explained, complete with charts, how the Twin Paradox (Penrose called it the Clock Paradox) is a geometry problem that is solved by understanding the path lengths of 4D Minkowskian geometry.
Penrose explained this in chapter 18 of The Road to Reality. The name of the chapter is "Minkowskian geometry".
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 12:40 am
February 5th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Be well. Be good.
Regards.
Oh, and PS,
Mike's latest blog has your name all over it. That whole beginning-from-the-end style origins thing… very retocausalityesque sounding. Have fun!
Comment by Rob R. — February 5, 2008 @ 1:25 am
February 5th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Not exactly on topic but check this out http://www.physorg.com/news120...
Genetic 'telepathy' will the weirdness never end.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 5, 2008 @ 8:27 am
February 5th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
After I read what you wrote in Mike Gene's "understand the universe" thread I was tempted to forgo responding to this philosophical argument and get back to doing science but I didn't think it would be appropriate to allow potential misperceptions to linger.
However, there really shouldn't be that many people who are surprised by my honest and open opinions by now.
1. I distrust most organized religions and feel they have been, and continue to be, dangerous to society.
2. My solution is to encourage independent thinking to fight the dogmatic mindset most organized religions encourage and expect.
3. I consider Orch OR to be a "Third Choice" alternative to dogmatically believing in a divine "Designer".
I encourage, expect, provoke and, even, demand that people like Bradford stand up for what they believe in. And, yes, I very much suspect that "riles" him. That is the point. I rile Keiths, Valerie and most of the denizens of After the Bar Closes too.
Verbal conflict generally makes people uncomfortable but attempts to "discuss rather than argue" inevidably, and almost instantly, lead to Group Think. If everyone on Telic Thoughts started agreeing with Orch OR, I would quickly start arguing against it to provoke us into verifying that we aren't just agreeing to avoid conflict.
Verbal conflict is better than the alternative.
As for your violation of Godwin's law…
When I was in college we had a mandatory course called Western Culture. It was the typical Lecture Hall followed by discussion group kind of deal. One day our discussion proctor suddenly stopped in the middle of writing down important WWII points to turn around and very seriously say "I don't understand how so many Christians could follow a man like Hitler." I laughed out loud. When she looked at me puzzled, I said "Just last week, we took a test on the Christian Crusades". She turned back around and continued writing on the blackboard. I don't think she liked me very much. I probably riled her too.
Of course, this was back in the dark ages before the Religious Right started downplaying the significance of "reality-based thinking". Before preceptions changed suggesting that even though Hitler hated communism, went to mass and prayed he was actually a godless left-leaning liberal.
And even though a Christian majority elected him and bishops and future popes supported his regime and celebrated his birthday he was actually supported by atheists. And, oh yeah, there is the Hitler oath.
"I swear by God,
this holy oath,
to the Führer of the German Reich and people.
Adolf Hitler…"
link
Kind of like how some people in America proudly pledge allegiance to one nation, under God, trusting in God. It's also similar to how some people like to echo their commander and chief's call for victory in Iraq. The Nazi followers simply said "sieg hail". IMO, the popular support of Nazism was fueled by some of the same forces that fueled the majority support for a pre-emptive war in Iraq that ended up killing over 100,000 men, women and children accompanied with the practice of torture and imprisonment in secret and not-so-secret gulags.
Are you certain that America would hesitate in exterminating six million non-Christians if it was thought they were "terrorists" bent on destroying our way of life?
IMO, faith and fear make for a powerful political weapon for controlling the masses. If it takes a little verbal provocation and the risk of getting people riled up by questioning their beliefs, I suggest it is worth it.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding of whether or not my desire for provoking independent thinking is just a canard. As long as people are actively defending their beliefs and explaining their thoughts instead of dogmatically following the herd (be it political or religious) people like St. Cyril, Hitler or even godless Stalin are powerless.
I really want Bradford to defend his ideas even though I am pretty sure some of my thoughts are not in alignment with his (an understatement), as long as the thoughts are out in the open.
BTW, you have my compliments in your courage to express your beliefs even though some of them aren't in alignment with mine.
Meanwhile, I hope we can get back to discussing science. I am looking forward to catching up with comments and participating in Mike Gene's new thread.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
You wrote…
When I said
The universe's purpose is "to do whatever it takes to exist and be consistent with itself." I meant that it wouldn't be limited by any "Upper Probability Bound" so, yea, it could include improbable, but possible, events like the resurrection of a certain Jewish rabbi, fairies in the bottom of gardens or, even, tea pots orbiting our sun.
However, if all the universe required was a prevailing belief, it would be a lot easier to manipulate the quantum minds of key individuals, like a certain Hellenistic Jew on his way to Damascus after one wandering rabbi out of many was dead and soon to be forgotten.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
TP,
Wonderful, beautiful derail. The lesson of bringing up comparisons to the nazis was utterly lost on you. I'd get into the facts of Nazi Germany, Christianity, and the like with you - but frankly, it would be a waste of time. You've put a whole lot of elbow-grease into constructing the worldview you live in. Like most others, it's not about to get shattered with some mere factual data.
So let's stick to the real point.
It does, but not the way you think. When you want people to hold particular beliefs, when you want them to think in a particular way, you're not 'promoting independent thinking'. You're a partisan angling for a political result. You provoke - and desire to provoke - as much 'independent thought' as a commercial for Miller-Lite.
And actively defend? I haven't been calling you out because - gasp - you argue with people. I've been pointing out the crass amateur psychotherapy and roundabout insults you engage in. I've been pointing out that your 'promoting independent thought' is a tremendous load. And I've been pointing out that, in the end, it isn't effective. It isn't 'great debating tactic' as you may think. It's merely transparent, and irritating. It's sanctimony writ large.
Which gives me something to sign off on.
TP, I'm writing under an alias on a medium traffic blog site on the internet, and so are you. There's no courage here. There's no valor. There's no victory or defeat in any meaningful senses of those terms. There's - my apologies to the admins here, as I truly love TT - a modest number of people, posting links and arguing.
So let my response be clear: I don't compliment your courage in expressing your views here, because it takes none. Maybe if you'd put down your frantic intellectual commitment to your worldview - we call that 'zealous devotion to dogma' in the pews, by the way - you'd realize how complicated the world really is, and in particular, the penny-ante stakes of arguments like this.
Instead, I have a sneaky suspicion you're going to wind yourself up and insinuate something along the lines of.. oh, say, if Huckabee becomes Vice President it will mean agnostics, unitarians, and women who wear jeans instead of skirts will be stoned to death en masse in a football stadium. And maybe, just maybe, if you can convince someone here you're a better debater than I am, a few more helpless babes will be smuggled out in their mothers' arms before the rocks start flying.
Comment by nullasalus — February 5, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
TP to nullasalus:
From what I've been able to tell, you haven't been "doing science," you've been promoting a particular model of a particular phenomenon you're still trying to understand, to people on both 'sides' of the evolution vs. ID divide, because it tweaks dogmatic opinions and ideological assumptions both ways. Consciousness as 'hidden variable' that both materialists and creationists must reject in order to maintain ideological commitments at the conclusion end.
Which doesn't answer questions on detail or process for life or evolution, and cannot change minds that came into this culture war already firmly made up. It lets you dance in the middle as if you had exclusive hold of something "closer to true" than either camp, knowing it won't get serious attention because it's heavily reliant on quantum mysticism (that no one really understands) which inevitably makes biologists bluster ineffectually and religious people shrug.
We know. So what? What do you personally expect to be able to do to eradicate religions and religious beliefs in your lifetime? Argue for a model of consciousness on an evolution vs. ID blog? How's that working out for you?
"Most?" That's not been my experience, though there is a subset of humans who seem to strongly need other people to tell them what to think and how to behave. I don't think you're in a position to do any Edwards Scissorhands sculpting of the tree of life per what variations on the theme exist in any given generation. Those who can handle independent thoughts generally have such thoughts on occasion. Those who can't will either not have them or will resist entertaining them. It has always been thus.
But you don't dogmatically believe in a divine Designer. So I don't know why you'd think it meaningful that you need an alternative to a belief you don't have. You could have gone with straight standard theory and become just another Evangelical Atheist, but you're not a 'joiner' and are contrary enough to want to tweak noses both ways. Again, not meaningful to the actual subject matter.
Orch-OR doesn't in any way do away with anybody's belief-in a divine Designer if they choose to believe in one. Surely you're smart enough to see that. In fact, if Orch-OR were confirmed in any significant way (and it might be), it would do way more to support a divine Designer than it would to challenge such views at their root. If consciousness does participate in the design of its own physical vehicle and is a concentrated manifestation of a fundamental parameter of reality, it's the materialists who come up way short, not the deists/theists who believed it all along.
Oh, come on! This is the Internet, TP. We do try to keep a tad of decorum here for the sake of "family friendly," but even we don't always succeed when tempers rise. Your 'other' playground never tried for any decorum - it's a swamp, and the swamp denizens who inhabit it like to keep it that way. Nobody's playing nice just to "avoid conflict." Maybe there's a Yahoo group like that, but they aren't discussing evolution versus ID.
But it is a canard. You aren't getting anyone to think independently, you're offering your personally favorite alternative because it's got an authoritative name attached and is good for inciting "verbal conflict" amongst the swamp denizens. It goes over the head or comes in under "duh" for creationists and IDers, something I told you months ago when I mentioned it in the first place.
I also recall telling you that despite its conceptual plusses, it wasn't likely to be a long-lived explanation due to the problem with quantum gravity and the increasing likelihood of intervening dimensions - as well as the existence of even better models in more dimensions. Boiling down, as all things eventually do, to the true nature of time. We are nowhere close to it yet.
Just thought I'd clarify a few things. Your position isn't as authoritative as you'd like to think, and your embraced model isn't the threat you wish it could be. At least, not to IDers. But you aren't changing or challenging any made-up minds over at AtBC either, are you? It takes no "courage" to have or express beliefs in the face of your disbelief. It just takes some familiarity with language and keyboards.
[Oops! nullasalus beat me to the post button, and said it better. Never mind.]
Comment by Joy — February 5, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
A quick response.
You wrote…