The Magic of Intelligent Design
by MikeGene[Author: Thought Provoker]
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke, Profiles of The Future
One of the biggest obstacles to accepting ID hypotheses as scientific endeavors is their appeal to magic-like mechanisms. But what if a magic-like aspect in nature has been around so long that we don't see it for the magic it is? I suggest what we think of as randomness is, for all practical purposes, magic.
Let's take a hypothetical coin, we flip it, it comes up heads. We note that.
We flip it again, it comes up heads again, We note the pattern (two heads in a row).
We flip it again, it comes up tails.
The pattern is broken. Why? Is it "magic"
We don't think of it that way because we are conditioned to expect flipped coins to "randomly" come up heads or tails even when we flip them in the exact same manner. The same would be true if we used a perfectly repeating mechanical device to flip the coin. Assuming the coin was perfectly balanced, the results would not be a pattern. A perfectly repeatable (deterministic) setup is impossible because quantum level effects are non-deterministic.
However, are quantum level effects random?
Before we try to answer that question, let's go back to flipping coins. This time we will flip three special coins. These special coins have an interesting aspect. They appear to respond to what is called. If "heads" is called at least one of the three coins will be heads. If "tails" is called, at least one of the three coins will be tails. After thousands and thousands of tests, the coins have never failed to do this. Further more, when "heads" are called all three coins will be heads one out of four times (not one out of eight). When "tails" are called all three coins will be tails one out of four times. At no time are all three coins heads when "tails" is called and at no time are all three coins tails when "heads" is called.
The thousands of consistent and repeatable experiments convinces even the most skeptical or scientist that the special coins are, indeed, special.
More experiments are preformed. It turns out that calling or "heads" or "tails" can be delayed until after the coins have landed (as long as no peeking is involved).
Further experiments show that three different people can flip the three coins separately. This exposed an very interesting property of the special coins. If the three people all call the same (either "heads" or "tails") then at least one of them gets what they call and, sometimes, all three of them get what they called as would be expected. However, if they don't call the same, sometimes none of them get what they call (happens one out of four times).
Once all the permutations are cataloged the special nature of the coins become even more apparent. The state of the third coin can be absolutely predicted after the first two coins are called and exposed.
For example, imagine the coins flipped and on the table with each of the three people covering it with their hands. The first person calls "heads", shows his coin, it is tails. The second person calls "heads", shows his coin, it is also tails. The third coin will ALWAYS be heads regardless of what the third person calls.
The experiment is reran, but this time the first two people call "tails" and their coins show tails again. The third coin will ALWAYS be tails regardless of what the third person calls.
Note that the third coin's state depended on what the other two people called NOT the whether the coins were heads or tails.
These special coins are special indeed. What natural explanations would explain the coin's behavior? Here are the non-metaphysical possibilities…
1. The third coin "magically" predicted the future.
2. The third coin "magically" changed state at the last moment
3. The coins are "magically" linked to people's consciousness
The magic described here is basically the reality of Greenberger"“Horne"“Zeilinger (GHZ) quantum states. Instead of calling heads or tails, the observers decide which of quantum state (e.g. horizontal polarization) to measure. This magic-like effect has been experimentally tested and verified countless times. Its reality is not in question.
Even though quantum effects are non-deterministic they aren't random.
You might ask what quantum level effects have to do with Intelligent Design.
First of all, it goes to show that magic-like effects can be scientific. There is also reason to believe quantum effects where instrumental to function in early life on Earth (front loaded?).
Recently, it was discovered that photosynthesis uses quantum mechanics. Photosynthesis is an extremely old biological mechanism.
DNA is being used as building blocks for quantum computers and the DNA structure and "code" is optimal for processing search algorithms. DNA/RNA defines what is or isn't considered a living organism.
Finally, the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model of consciousness hypothesizes that consciousness is an artifact of quantum processing in microtubules. Microtubules are instrumental in living structures and organisms that appear to be aware of their surroundings.
Personally, I have serious criticisms concerning the apparent motives and past actions of the ID Movement, but it would be a mistake to dismiss all challenges to orthodox thinking as simply an appeal to the metaphysical because it may turn out that the magic is real.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:57 am
MG
Perhaps what we see as random is not really random at all, but the interworkings of an intelligence that is far above our own. Perhaps even miracles (magic) are possible because that intelligence is the author of the laws that govern the universe. What we can detect as front-loading: designed evolution, is not really front-loading at all either, but the precise tinkering of that intelligence in order to arrive at a particular complexity.
I think perhaps the Darwinists were right in some ways about embryos. Could this be an example of front-loading? The planned development into a complex organism? Heckel may have got it wrong in the specifics, but the idea seems right. Only the Darwinists deny that there is any conceived plan. They deny the magic in it. However, somewhere in the regression there has to be the magic, whether natural or supernatural.
Maybe Stunny can give us some insight here.
If the universe evolved in order to arrive at the current precise conditions required for life, what does that say about biological evolution?
Comment by Randy — August 13, 2007 @ 12:57 am
August 13th, 2007 at 1:20 am
While in some cases randomness is just the interworkings of unknown or uncalculable causes, I would like to suggest that in a large number of cases, randomness is… well… randomness. Statistical randomness, for instance, has some interesting properties that suit it well for systems. Statistical randomness guarantees a given statistical occurrence of an event no matter what subset of events are chosen. This is why, for instance, on slot machines, each handle pull is random, but the results (that the casino makes money) is not.
And thus, I believe that it is this property of randomness that helps out in teleology. In the face of uknowns, statistical randomness can force an outcome to be a predetermined result. So, a localized randomness can be the best mechanism to ensuring long-term stability of results in the face of unknown challenges.
Comment by johnnyb — August 13, 2007 @ 1:20 am
August 13th, 2007 at 3:48 am
Hans Halvorson, following on the work of Malament, recently demonstrated that relativistic quantum field theory does not permit an ontology of localizable particles supervenient on the fundamental fields. Talk of microscopic particles is then construed as simply pragmatic, rather than as carrying any objectively realist ontological import.
In order for something really to exist as an individual material object, it must occupy a certain volume of space at a certain time. If it does not, then whatever it is—if it's anything at all—it's not a material object. And the problem for the materialist is that the particles of relativistic quantum mechanics are not localizable, as Halvorson has shown. At the very least, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, don't meet the normal criteria for being individual material objects. Their nonlocal correlations cannot be explained by locally acting causes. And when I say 'cannot', I don't mean 'cannot be explained for the time being but check again next year'. No, I mean cannot in principle.
The objective structure of the physical world, then, if it's still to be explained materialistically, must resort to 'magic' in the sense that such nonlocal correlations would have to posit random devices that could have a spacelike separation of 10 billion light-years and yet still remain in perfect harmony without any causal influence one upon another (as per the coins in TP's analogy.) The great irony is that one has to believe in magic in order to be a materialist these days.
One obvious solution to the nonlocalizability result is to opt for Berkeleyan idealism. In Berkeley's view, matter does not exist. There are only minds, and their perceptions and thoughts, with their intersubjective relations dependent on and coordinated by God.
I myself am not sure I'd go that far. But I don't think one has to. God's mind alone is all that is needed to explain nonlocal measurement correlations, and resolve quantum probabilities into wavefunction 'collapses', so creating the familiar physical world of our experience. In other words, the physical world of ordinary experience is real enough and independent of our minds, and in that sense objective. But it's not independent of God's mind. As per Dummett, passim.
Comment by stunney — August 13, 2007 @ 3:48 am
August 13th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
See the chapter Quantum Magic and Mystery, in Roger Penrose's Emperor's New Mind.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 13, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Thank you Mike for hosting this thread. Hopefully this will give other bloggers and some of your critics reason to pause and think.
I am encouraged by the reactions so far. Bradford went so far as to make a post on his blog extending my remarks. The comments here have been in the similar vain. While there is some signs of bias towards suggesting a single being ("author") as an explanation, this wasn't unexpected.
It is the lack of explanation that makes magic, magical. Once something has been explained, be it non-teleologically or divinely, it is no longer magic.
I have faith in Gould's NOMA. This is my bias. I believe we cannot know the Truth (capital "T"). This "cannot" is like Stunney's "cannot", forever impossible.
Mathematics has often been used in an attempt to find Truth. Among the powerful concepts revealed by mathematics is the "realities" of infinity and impossibility. The Pythagoreans had to face the hard reality that it was impossible to express all numbers as ratios of integers, even though "integers" describe an infinite set of numbers.
More recently, Kurt Gödel provided more mathematically hard realities with his incompleteness theorems. From Wikipedia…
"The more famous incompleteness theorem states that for any self-consistent recursive axiomatic system powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers (Peano arithmetic), there are true propositions about the naturals that cannot be proved from the axioms."
This is math speak for saying there are things that are true that can NEVER be explained as to why they are true.
In the everyday speak, we would call such things "magic".
I just noticed kornbelt888 made a reference as to how this idea is something Sir Rodger Penrose has offered in the past. I have struggled mightily against being sarcastic when commenting on blogs. This is an example of why it is a struggle. It is very tempting to respond with something like "Penrose? Now, why didn't I think of that?!?!?"
It is not my intent to pick on kornbelt888, I believe he was being helpful. It is just that I have been submerging myself in trying to understand what Penrose and "Stu" Hameroff have been saying. This is very much their ideas, not mine. I am just doing my best to regurgitate it and to explore the ramifications.
One of the things Penrose got interested in was the concept of aperiodic tilings. Historically, it was thought that when covering a two-dimension surface with shapes (e.g. tiling a floor) that eventually the pattern must repeat. However, it couldn't be mathematically proven to be true. In fact, the opposite was proven. This is that handy aspect of mathematics being able to prove a negative, showing something is impossible. It was impossible to prove all tilings had to be periodic (repeating). This contra-proof was presented by Robert Berger in 1966. The race was on to find examples of what was once considered impossible, aperiodic tilings. The first solution involved over 20,000 shapes. Other, simpler solutions required fewer shapes. Down to 104, 40, 6 and finally, in 1971, Penrose found one that only used two shapes, Penrose's tilings. Ten years later, mineralogists found an "impossible" crystal formation. A crystal that wasn't periodic. It matched Penrose's tilings.
It is relevant to note that Penrose maintains his solution was non-algorithmic. That is, he can't explain the process of how he figured out the answer. This is one of the reasons Penrose feels a non-quantum based computer will NEVER be conscious. He has presented compelling arguments as to why "Strong AI" is impossible. Penrose argues that consciousness is dependent on a non-algorithmic process, something that can't be explained. The fundamentals of consciousness are based on "magic".
This is where Dr. Hameroff comes in. He has dedicated his professional life to the study of consciousness. He was already suspecting that microtubules were at the root cause of consciousness and had reason to suspect quantum mechanics was involved. Penrose and Hameroff teamed up to present the Orch OR model of consciousness.
Consciousness and quantum mechanics are all interconnected in a non-deterministic way. It will never be explained. Calling it random doesn't help. The three special coins (GHZ states) are clearly not random.
"Non-deterministic and non-random" is just another way of saying "magic".
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 13, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Nice post, TP!
Comment by mcromer — August 13, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I'm convinced that the words "magic" and "supernatural" have either lost all of their meaning, or never really had much meaning beyond "that which happens or happened, beyond or ability to understand" to begin with.
With regards to consciousness, I've lately seen the fight between the people who believe and don't believe in a "soul" to be largely forced and artificial, having more to do with politics than the facts of the matter. And I remember reading about how Stuart Hameroff - not exactly a friend to theist types - ended up getting chewed out at a Beyond Belief conference, on the grounds that he was asserting that consciousness itself was somehow unique or special.
Comment by nullasalus — August 13, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Hi johnnyb,
You wrote…
You also went on to talk about how this helps out casinos and teleology.
But what if there is no such thing as randomness?
I realize this might sound like a suggestion there may be no such thing as the color blue. However, your casino example may provide an interesting vehicle for me to explain my point.
A lot of betting machines are computerized. Their randomness comes from a pseudorandom number generator. While there are probably all kinds of reasons the following situation isn't correct, let's pretend.
Imagine a casino that is entirely computerized. Slot machines are computer simulations. Everything is controlled by computer programs which uses pseudorandom number generators.
The pseudorandom number generators are so complex and so nearly perfect that it would be practically impossible to reverse engineer the pattern, even with the help of the government's super super-computers.
But pseudorandom isn't random. While it might be impossible for even the government to reverse engineer the pattern, it isn't a problem for the casino since they hold all the keys, the random number generator's seeds. The house can know exactly what its machines are going to do, in the long-term and in the short-term. To them, there is no randomness to it at all.
This kind of non-randomness was the promise of Newtonian physics. If we could know the precise position and velocity of every particle in the universe for a given point in time, we could know everything for all time (past and future).
While it was understood that this would be extremely difficult, it was presumed to be theoretically possible. In this view of the universe, there was no such thing as randomness, just a lack of knowledge. Quantum mechanics changed all that.
If there is such a thing as actual randomness, quantum mechanics is the only possible source. Are quantum effects random? While it may be impossible to figure out the patterns, when it becomes evident that three slot machines label "GHZ States" never allow the casino to lose, the word "random" doesn't come to mind. For a casino we would call it "rigged", in a real world universe we would call it "magic".
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 13, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Could someone please check my comment in moderation? Thanks.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 13, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
When magic is used in a sentence it can be translated almost always to mean "I don't belive this and I don't like it either." I think TP is trying to remove the nonsense from the word games among other things.
Comment by Bradford — August 13, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Thank You.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 13, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
My primary intent was to explain why I considered the illogic of quantum GHZ states to be very significant in terms others might understand easier.
There is no such thing as a "minor" abnormality in a logic system. Attempting to ignore the GHZ states is like attempting to ignore people inexplicably disappearing and reappearing. "Oh yeah, that happens, it's magic".
Politically, I think of the post as a double-edged sword. While I indicated it would be a mistake to dismiss ID Hypotheses because they propose magic-like mechanisms, the implication is that ID proponents don't have an excuse for avoiding suggesting mechanisms just because they are magic-like.
I consider EAM and the Third Choice to be ID hypotheses that provide mechanistic descriptions and, therefore, provide an alternative to current thinking.
Complaining about "Darwinism" without offering an alternative is as useful was complaining about the weather, maybe less so (as in being destructive).
P.S. Bradford, do you have the capability of getting my other comment out of "awaiting moderation"
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 13, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Hi TP,
First, the definition of EAM from your link rejects a mechanistic and physical explanation.
However, both EAM and your third choice are still question begging. Short of a theory of everything all causal explanations (except those grounded in some ultimate uncaused cause) have an infinite regress, "what caused the cause?" This has been famously characterized by the turtle dilemna ("its turtles all the way down!" said the father to his daughter). This is why a NOMA approach may try to shy away from religious sentiment but cannot from metaphysics if it is to be complete.
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 13, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Thought Provoker:
Huh? I don't see why my reference is deserving of sarcasm. It is certainly a relevant citation. Don't you think that there may be plenty of people reading this blog who have not seen Penrose's rather splendid treatment of the "magic" of QM? You're a puzzling fellow to me, TP.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 13, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
nullasalus:
I like your style.
All I would add is that the "super" in "supernatural" implies an asymmetrical causal relationship, like the Matrix computer to the Matrix. As some might say, "ontological dependency."
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 13, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Hi Steve,
You wrote…
I'm not going to try to describe EAM in detail since just about every time I have Joy has corrected me. However, I will note you have to go out of your way in that summary to avoid the indications it was a mechanistic model…
"Endogenous Adaptive Mutagenesis refers to an approach to evolutionary theory which finds its mechanism, (that is, the causal explanation for biological evolution), within the organism itself, not in any external agent.
…
EAM is, therefore, an 'adaptive' mechanism, not a 'selective' mechanism, (such as is the famous, Random Genetic Mutation plus Natural Selection). More importantly, adaptation and adaptive evolution are seen as intentional dynamic processes, rather than as accidental and coincidental, passively experienced, anomalous events."
One could offer that RM-NS is "non-mechanical". Does that mean Darwinism isn't a mechanistic model?
When it comes to God, turtles or Many Worlds I don't know the Truth, do you?
I can't use the tools from the scientific magesteria to explore questions of Truth.
Again, I will only attempt to speak for the Third Choice. The Third Choice is about science, not philosophy. As a scientific hypothesis it can't be and won't be a final answer. It is offered as a consistent model that useful in furthering our ability to create other useful scientific models.
Is anything real? Was the universe created Last Thursday? Those are philosophical questions.
The money in a Monopoly game isn't real. You don't actually buy and sell property. However, that doesn't keep us from being able to play it.
This particular game is like king-of-the-hill. You hold the high ground until something better comes along. You only get to play if you can offer an alternative. What is your alternative?
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 13, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Hi kornbelt888,
You wrote…
Which is why I try to avoid making sarcastic remarks. My urge to be sarcastic isn't a desire to punish or ridicule. It is an emotional response. I reacted to your suggestion to read a particular chapter in a particular book written by Penrose as being directed towards me. I quickly realized that wasn't what was going on but not quick enough to avoid having an emotional reaction.
I meant it when I said "I believe [kornbelt888] was being helpful."
I thank you for your efforts and apologize if I caused offense.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 13, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
TP:
It wasn't directed to anyone in particular. Sorry for the confusion.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 13, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
TP,
I would certainly hope to have some glimpse of the Truth or why bother?
Have you asked any practicing scientists about this? I would suspect that if they didn't think they were in pursuit of Truth, many wouldn't bother with their research.
Oh really? Is a theory really about reality? Do the representations of science say anything about the way things really are? Does quantum mechanics say anything about reality or is it just a subjective imposition of scientific symbols with some sort of loaded deck? These are philosophical questions. Did you ever wonder why invariably fundamental physicists delve into philosophy?
This is an incredibly apt description of endeavors that claim no search or correspondence with the Truth. It's just a game that attempts to follow certain made up rules but claims no attempt to discover the Truth of things and has no real existential import. It can be a pass time but why should anyone care?
I've pointed to this alternative many times here. Surely you have seen it. A monistic theism It's an alterative that has found support in the Indian philosophy of Ramanuja, Sri Aurobindo, Absolute idealism, Plato's Timaeus, the physcis of Ulrich Mohrhoff, Erwin Schrodinger, etc.
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 13, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Hi Steve,
Rather than continuing down the path Joy refers to as "dueling metaphysics" I will simply reiterate my stance with some of my words you chose not to respond to…
"As a scientific hypothesis [the Third Choice] can't be and won't be a final answer. It is offered as a consistent model that useful in furthering our ability to create other useful scientific models."
This is the core of what I am trying to say. Science is a never-ending process. We engage in the effort even as we understand that the wise man knows he knows nothing.
I am certain there will be plenty of opportunaties to discuss philosophy and religion on other threads. I would like to try to keep this one focused on science.
Let's do science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 13, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
With regard to Orch-OR, have there been any recent developments? I've looked over the general quantum consciousness theories, and it seems like Henry Stapp is at least fairly active in promoting his view - he has a new book out. Whereas with Orch-OR, it seemed to run into Tegmark's objections, and I haven't heard much since then.
Comment by nullasalus — August 13, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
TP,
But why bother if it has nothing to do with the Truth?
Again I say why bother if it is just a game with no relevance to the Truth? If science is just like monopoly why should anyone care about it? It might be fun "logical" diversion but surely there are more entertaining things to occupy one's mind.
Comment by Steve Petermann — August 13, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You asked…
http://www.hameroff.com is a good place to look. There is a lot of new stuff there.
There are two general Tegmark objections. The first one is a strawman in that Tegmark uses his own assumptions and quantum mechanical model to determine his own frequency calculations that he then uses to argue that it doesn't match observations.
The second objection is more legitimate (at least it was). Here he argues temperature requirements. The words "wet warm brain" is often repeated in response to Hameroff's suggestion. Tegmark argues quantum decohence would happen almost instantly at above freezing temperatures making it useless for use by living things.
I said "at least it was" because recent discoveries cast doubt on that argument…
"Surmounting several distinct hurdles to quantum computing, physicists at Harvard University have found that individual carbon-13 atoms in a diamond lattice can be manipulated with extraordinary precision to create stable quantum mechanical memory and a small quantum processor, also known as a quantum register, operating at room temperature."
link
"The quantum Hall effect (QHE), one example of a quantum phenomenon that occurs on a truly macroscopic scale [previously] has been observed only at liquid-helium temperatures. We [now] show that in graphene, in a single atomic layer of carbon, the QHE can be measured reliably even at room temperature…"
link
"We have obtained the first direct evidence that remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence plays an important part in energy transfer processes during photosynthesis," link
These, and other, discoveries show that quantum effects aren't isolated to cold temperatures. I especially like the last one about photosynthesis. It is direct evidence of life on Earth using quantum mechanics for an extremely old function.
DNA is being used in human-created quantum computers.
The tables are turning against arguments like Tegmark. It is quickly becoming obvious this temperature argument of incredulity isn't going to hold up.
Considering how fast inventors are making working inventions that use quantum effects, it approaches hubris to think it would be impossible for nature to do something similar.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 13, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
nullasalus wrote:
That's largely true, since the people who argue for the existence of the soul have powerful religious motivations for reaching their predetermined answer. They tend to ignore or downplay the evidence, seeing it as a threat to their most cherished beliefs.
Within neuroscience and the philosophy of mind, where people are quite familiar with the evidence, belief in the soul (aka substance dualism) is practically extinct.
Hameroff wasn't criticized at all for asserting that consciousness was special. He was criticized for making wild speculative leaps that were unjustified by reason or evidence.
For example, after laying out his already speculative case that gamma synchrony, mediated by quantum effects, is the neural correlate of consciousness, he went on to claim that this mechanism somehow links consciousness to a Platonic undergirding of aesthetic and moral values, as exemplified by the Vedic Godhead and Kabbalah wisdom. No, I'm not kidding. You can watch it for yourself here (Hameroff's presentation is at the beginning of Session Four).
Comment by keiths — August 13, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
keiths,
And the people who actively argue against the existence of a "soul" tend to have powerful political/personal and social motivations for reaching their own predetermined answers. And as a result, they tend to argue against either charicatures of the soul, or cherry-pick the easiest interpretations of the word - and that really is the point. Regardless of its popular roots in greek philosophy, the concept of the soul (and what ultimately comprises the individual self) is rarely a black-and-white defined concept, even in many organized faiths.
I'm not surprised people in neuroscience and the philosophy of mind have such an opinion, though I'd believe it has less to do with the evidence speaking against a soul, and more to do with a disinterest, even a confusion at exploring that aspect of the debate. Just out of curiosity, I did a search now for David Chalmers and substance dualism, and found he had this to say (circa 2002):
As for the rest…
I've seen it, and I'm going to have to stick to what I said. I actually felt sorry for the guy - I say this as someone who is best described as a traditionalist Catholic - because he clearly has a strong distaste for organized religion, and thought he was among open-minded people at the BB Conference. So much for that.
Comment by nullasalus — August 13, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
And atheists like Keiths have powerful motives for arguing against the existence of souls. They cherry pick evidence to support claims. If they were true to their materialist beliefs and serious about science they would use studies to make inferences about material brain cells and biochemical reactions rather than metaphysical souls. But that's difficult when you have an atheist agenda to support.
Comment by Bradford — August 13, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
ThoughtProvoker:
While I agree that those things you state are nonrandom, I am still holding out for randomness in some areas. The problem, though, is not about things being "rigged", or "gamed", but rather that randomness can be mustered to fight through _any_ set of difficulties that uses its design. For example, in computer science, the Quicksort algorithm works well, except for some really interesting cases in which it works horrendously slowly. The solution is to randomize the input, and thus, no matter what the input is, the worst case solution _must_ be amortized across the best-case solutions. With randomness, there _is no_ input that will continually trigger worst-case behavior. Without randomness, there is. And a pseudo-random source won't give you the same guarantees that true randomness will.
My current presumption is that what happens at the quantum level is random, unless it is acted upon by a conscious intervener, in which case certain events are actualized based on will rather than chance. But that is a very tenuous position.
Comment by johnnyb — August 13, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
August 13th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Hi Keiths and Nullasalus,
Nullasalus wrote…
This is the second time someone directed me to this video in as evidence Orch-OR is wrong. While it wasn't Hameroff's best performance, I thought he did rather well. This was a conference that was supposed to be about the interaction of science and belief. It was obvious Hameroff felt his philosophical arguments were the weakest of the three categories he presented. Why was that obvious? Because he said so and spent practically no time attempting to explain it. At least he gave it a try.
Open debate is good. Even "wild speculative leaps" can be good in brain storming sessions as this conference was billed.
Keith, your attempt at ridiculing him because he voiced opinions on beliefs that he may or may not actually hold says a lot more about you than Hameroff.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 13, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Hi johnnyb,
You wrote…
If Newtonian Physics is deterministic (non-random) and quantum mechanics isn't random, then what is the natural source of randomness?
"True randomness" is the one with no guarantees. You could end up with a long string of repeating answers (unlikely by "possible"). The pseudo-random source can guarantee an even distribution over the size of your search set.
And you aren't alone in holding that position. The bad news is that means you are practically forced to accept retrocausality.
Thank you for thinking about this. Unfortunately, it is getting late… talk to you later.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 14, 2007 @ 12:19 am
August 14th, 2007 at 7:07 am
nullasalus wrote:
Describe the sort of soul you have in mind, and we can discuss how it fares in light of the evidence. The sort of soul that most Christians have in mind does not fare very well.
In that case you'd be mistaken. Many philosophers and neuroscientists have addressed the subject quite directly and clearly, laying out the reasons for the conclusions they reach.
Chalmers just underscores my point. He has no use for the traditional concept of the soul:
"Causal closure" is the key phrase. The only role of the immaterial vis-a-vis the material is as a helpless spectator, in Chalmers' view. Not the kind of soul most people have in mind, and certainly not one which can be morally responsible for a person's actions.
As I said, the people most familiar with the evidence — neuroscientists and philosophers of mind — do not accept the idea of an immaterial soul. As Steven Pinker put it,
nullasallus:
That's strange, since what you said was false. You claimed that Hameroff was criticized for saying that consciousness was special, yet the video shows that this did not happen.
I felt sorry for him too. One thing he shares with TP is an enthusiasm for certain ideas that outruns his own critical faculties. You can sense his disappointment that the audience is not willing to make the unjustified leaps he is asking them to make.
He may have been hoping for an open-minded/brains-falling-out type of audience, when what he got was an open-minded/let's-see-the-evidence reception.
As for his distaste for organized religion — the nice thing about a conference like Beyond Belief is that the people who attend tend to believe that an assertion needs to be justified, regardless of who makes it. Hameroff wasn't going to purchase their assent simply by being a critic of organized religion.
Comment by keiths — August 14, 2007 @ 7:07 am
August 14th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Bradford wrote:
What powerful motives? I rather like the idea of having a soul, and a (pleasant) eternal life. I even used to believe in souls. It's just that the evidence doesn't support their existence, and I'd rather not believe in them if they don't actually exist.
Atheism has nothing to do with it. Proving the existence of the soul doesn't prove God's existence. Proving that the soul doesn't exist doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. They're separate questions.
Okay, Bradford. If I'm cherry-picking, I must be ignoring a large body of evidence in favor of the soul's existence. Where (and what) is it?
As I've pointed out to you already, that demand is ridiculous. Neuroscience and psychology both deal with aspects of human mental life that have traditionally been ascribed to the soul: cognition, memory, morality, emotion, etc. If science can say nothing about the soul, as you claim, then that leaves almost nothing for it to say about the mind. Good luck convincing psychologists and neuroscientists of that.
You're frightened of the evidence, Bradford, and you want to call off the game before the evidence can be put into play. Sorry, but it's too late. The game goes on, whether or not you choose to participate.
Comment by keiths — August 14, 2007 @ 7:08 am
August 14th, 2007 at 7:09 am
TP wrote:
You think Hameroff isn't subject to criticism of his own, publicly stated opinions?
Comment by keiths — August 14, 2007 @ 7:09 am
August 14th, 2007 at 7:46 am
And atheists like Keiths have powerful motives for arguing against the existence of souls.
You'd rather not believe that you could be held responsible for your actions by one you cannot BS.
Baloney. You are well aware that debunking the existence of souls is a core issue and your atheism has everything to do with your obsession with this topic.
If they were true to their materialist beliefs and serious about science they would use studies to make inferences about material brain cells and biochemical reactions rather than metaphysical souls. But that's difficult when you have an atheist agenda to support.
Empirical results need to address that which can be empirically evaluated. That includes brain cells, brain function, biochemical reactions etc. Science has something to say about these things but is perverted by your attempt to misuse it to make proclamations about metaphysical concerns like souls.
The "game" is bounded by Popperian like rules related to empirical testing that you ignore. New Atheists are really a tame lot whose "evidence" extends as far as their imaginations.
Comment by Bradford — August 14, 2007 @ 7:46 am
August 14th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Bradford wrote:
Um, Bradford, you just scolded Zachriel, saying "This is sheer argument by assertion." Does the irony escape you?
Can science legitimately study cognition? Decision-making? Emotion? Memory? Risk-taking? The moral sense?
What about the neural underpinnings of these functions?
Comment by keiths — August 14, 2007 @ 8:55 am
August 14th, 2007 at 9:49 am
johnnyb:
At the Los Angeles Museum of Science and Industry there is a contraption where balls are released at the top, and the ball then randomly bounces around the top area and eventually falls into one of several vertical tubes. There is a probability that the ball will land in some tubes contra other tubes given the position of the tubes. However, some balls do land in the less probable tubes according to a well understood statistic. The tubes themselves are transparent and mounted on some wood that is painting to show the expected distribution after several hundred balls have been released and allowed to distribute into the tubes.
So then, something is responsible for the random distribution of any given ball. And something is responsible for the distribution "shape" of the entire set of balls. My point to you is: this process will occur with the same statistical shaping regardless of whether anyone is in the room watching it or not. So then, how does this case fit with your idea that quantum effects are random unless acted upon by a consciousness? Obviously the randomness of a single ball is utterly non-deterministic by us. But something behind it all is "shaping" the distribution of this randomness regardless of whether a consciousness is observing it or not.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 14, 2007 @ 9:49 am
August 14th, 2007 at 9:54 am
[Oops. I just deleted one of my own comments because it helped to steer this thread off-topic. TP, if you think the Hole is needed to keep the discussion on-topic, just say the word, identify the comment(s), and I'll clean it later today.]
Comment by MikeGene — August 14, 2007 @ 9:54 am
August 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
keiths,
And most Christians don't bother to develop their thoughts of the soul much either. Nor do they really need to, in a way - while there is a very long tradition of intellectual discussion and exploration of God, the Bible, theology, and even the natural world, for the most part the faith is focused on behavior and the here-and-now. Specifics of life-after-death are thin, though I'll note that the resurrection of the body is both a major tenet for most denominations' views of eternal life.
You obviously haven't paid close attention, either to the varied concepts of 'soul' in the Christian tradition, or what many philosophers and neuroscientists object to. I'll give you a hint: Many Christians (though certainly not all) can agree with the statement 'consciousness requires a brain or something brain-like to occur', while still believing in a soul. The Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind, where they identify soul with (I believe) physical existence. Thomists, who identify the corporeal body as essential for what we know as human life and experience, could cope easily with the idea as well.
Chalmers says outright that he doesn't really understand substance dualism, and does not reject it - he goes on to explain that he thinks it goes a bit too far, given what needs to be explained. I'd object to substance dualism being called the 'traditional concept of the soul' (Descartes arrived on the scene rather late), or even to there being any precisely defined concept of such. Popular concepts are not traditional.
But that aside, the hard problem opens the door to a host of possible solutions, and substance dualism - while certainly unpopular, and something I view with caution - remains one of them. That said, a Christian could swallow something as supposedly extreme (and, worth noting, itself unpopular) as Daniel Dennett's view of consciousness, and still retain the concept of a soul. It may rule out substance dualism, but as I've said, substance dualism is not where the idea sinks or swims.
The video shows the specific points on which Hameroff was criticized. The motivations for what led to Hameroff being criticized are another thing entirely. If Hameroff's ideas were simply and calmly objected to or debated, it'd be one thing. The particular spirit and emotion laced into the criticism I've seen and read about with regards to BB? That's where I find you're wrong.
And I think he simply received a lesson that skeptics are more skeptical of some things than others. And I say this not fully buying into the Orch-OR model. If he presented Orch-OR as 'a theory that could signal the death-knell for traditional religious concepts of the soul and consciousness', I believe the reaction would have been different.
Bradford,
This pretty much sums up my view of the matter. Science is not going to kill the 'soul' because (at least for me - others may disagree) the 'soul' is not an explicit, single positive claim. Science can certainly inform philosophy and metaphysical discussions. But when someone yells that 'contemporary neuroscience disproves the soul!', they're saying a lot more about their own motivation than anything else.
TP,
Thanks for the additional information on Orch-OR. Has Penrose himself had any comment about Orch-OR recently? It seems like Hameroff is the one doing all the legwork, so to speak. Though I know Penrose has a multitude of ideas he's interested in, so he's less likely to focus exclusively on consciousness.
Comment by nullasalus — August 14, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Well, not really. For instance, the coins are "entangled". The players don't call the result, but call the type of measurement among orthogonal and limited options. The players are separated by such a distance that no lumenal communication is possible during each test. Here is a site that discusses the game in a bit more detail.
I understand it is merely illustrative to reach this discussion:
These are normally stated as Locality, Realism and Free Will. Any two appear to be consistent, but all three appear to be inconsistent. Unless you posit Many Worlds.
There doesn't appear to be anything in the quantum effects of photosynthesis or DNA structure to indicate anything other than opportunistic evolution working within the quantum realm. As to quantum effects in the study of consciousness, I have little doubt that quantum effects play a part in how neurons work, but there is no evidence of a "woo-factor", and most scientists believe it is possible, in principle, to devise a mechanical mind. Indeed, neural networks solve many of the same sorts of problems, especially in pattern recognition, that were once considered unique to brains.
"”
Edited attribution.Comment by Zachriel — August 14, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Hi Zachriel,
This was my opening post, not MikeGene's.
I will respond later.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 14, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Hi Mike,
Thank you again for the thread. I don't think we need to start deleting other comments at this time. Hopefully the threat will be good enough to help get thngs back on track.
To be blunt, I wish people would please take their arguments about souls elsewhere.
Thanks,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 14, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
nullasalus:
Hello, nullasalus. Don't know what Penrose is up to lately (broad interests), but there's a bit of a problem with his end of the theory per the matter of his graviton operator. It's a little like theorizing multiple dimensions or multiverses - physical evidence is probably going to be in short supply forever. We're never likely to see a graviton. Heck, they can't even find Higgs…
On the computational dynamics end per Hameroff's contribution (PCCs/NCCs), here's an MP3 to Jack Tuszynski's presentation at the 2nd annual Terasem Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology - The Computational Capabilities of the Cytoskeleton, and here's the powerpoint that goes with.
Tuszynski is Allard Chair, Division of Experimental Oncology at the Cross Cancer Institute and physics professor at the University of Alberta. When not quantifying MT biophysics, condensed and nonlinear physics, he works on designing drugs, or as he puts it, "Mathematical Modeling in Pharmaceutical Development (MMPD)," and "Pharmacokinetics." If you like to read research papers, there are collections available for downloading (in full and for free!) at his home page. Hasn't been updated since 2005, but some of these are incredibly fascinating. Intro to some of his better known work…
Lifeboat also has a list of more than 200 of his publications.
Comment by Joy — August 14, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Hi keiths,
Can you say "balance"
Concerning Hameroff's presentation, you wrote…
And…
Let me ask you something I often ask our theistic friends…
I don't know the Truth, do you?
Have you ever tried to strongly argue something you disagree with? To honestly try to present the best case possible regardless of your presumption it is wrong?
If you haven't, you should try it sometime. It helps in providing balance when making persuasive speechs. You, and others, point to this film clip as convincing evidence of Hameroff's inadaquacy in presenting his case. I see it quite differently.
Hameroff's ideas have been known for years. This wasn't a out-of-the-blue presentation. Yet, the critique barely got above sputtering assertions of increduality. The hardest hitting points were from a young physicist regurgitating Tegmark's temperature argument which, in essence, is an accusation against Penrose's understanding of quantum physics. It also ignores quite a bit of recent "surprising" experiments demonstrating quantum effects happening at room-temperature.
Hopefully, we can achieve a more balanced discussion by concentrating on the arguments instead of criticizing the messenger.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 14, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Hi kornbelt888,
You asked johnnyb…
While I think it is non-random regardless of whether or not it is observed, some from the Copenhagen school of thought think consciousness forces RANDOM wave function collapse (it is the non-observed effects that aren't random).
Thank you for your input. I think it might help provoke more thinking about the "magic" of randomness.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 14, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Hi Zachriel,
You wrote…
I liked the link, thank you. I had tried the X's and Y's explanation in the Third Choice description but I think it was still too abstract, so I tried "special coins". I think it made some head way. Yes, it was "merely illustrative".
I consider "Many Worlds" to be as metaphysical as "God Did It", maybe more so. At least, with God, there is a chance (as improbable as it may be) that he/she/it could be scientifically detected. Especially if we ever hear a big booming voice announcing the end-of-days.
Whether it is called "locality", "superluminosity", "causality" ,"retrocausality " the term isn't important. Ideas are what count.
lol
And there isn't anything in winning the lottery other than an opportunistic selection of correct numbers.
DNA and photosynthesis are OLD!
This isn't life gradually over billions of years eventually incorporating quantum mechanics. It was incorporated early, maybe at the OOL.
Or were you saying quantum mechanics came first thus facilitating OOL? (If you are, we may be in more agreement than not)
Instead of "woo-factor", let's use the term "magic".
Before I forget, thank you for this perfectly on-topic comment. This is exactly what I am talking about. Penrose has provided compelling arguments that "strong AI" is not possible. Here is Planet Math's analysis of Penrose's proof in Shadows of the Mind.
The point may become moot considering the AI folks are incorporating quantum computers. Someday we may have thinking machines that use the "woo-factor". Those creating the super-secure communication devices are already relying on quantum "woo" in their applications.
No problem, it's just magic.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 14, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
TP:
With a capital T? No. But I do know that some arguments are better than others, and some positions are more defensible than others.
Yes.
No, I used it to demonstrate that Hameroff had not been criticized for proposing that consciousness was 'special'.
My opinion of Hameroff's case is based on far more than this single presentation.
The criticism was due to the content of his ideas, not their age.
Comment by keiths — August 14, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Interpretations of quantum theory are largely metaphysical as there is currently no empirical method for distinguishing between them. That does not mean that a resolution of this conundrum is impossible. Of note, quantum mechanical calculations often involve summing all possible histories.
Sure, but we don't know whether they are the *same* idea by different names at this point.
Quantum reality involves symmetry breaking in the Big Bang, so it certainly predates the life. It predates atoms.
Both terms have problematic connotations, but an undifferentiated "woo" is not a useful scientific concept. It tends to be a stand-in for whatever conclusion you want.
I disagree. First of all, it isn't necessary to use a wholly digital machine for AI; it might have analog components. Also, not all mathematical systems are even covered by Gödel's incompleteness theory, such as Euclidean geometry. Human thought long predates the arithmetic of natural numbers.
We could just assume the general (not absolute) consistency of our logic. But honestly, people aren't particularly consistent anyway, often simultaneously holding contradictory ideas. And if I read it correctly, there are substantial technical errors in their argument. I think PlanetMath needs some work.
Comment by Zachriel — August 14, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Hi Keiths,
You wrote…
Good. Maybe you can enlighten all of us as to their response to Hameroff's list of unresolved problems…
"1) Neural correlates of conscious perception apparently occur too late"”150 to 500 milliseconds (msec) after impingement on our sense organs"”to have causal efficacy in seemingly conscious perceptions and willful actions, often initiated or completed within 100 msec after sensory impingement. For example in the color phi and cutaneous rabbit anomalies, the brain apparently fills in conscious sensory information that is not yet available (Kolers & Grunau 1976, Geldard & Sherrick 1972, c.f. Dennett & Kinsbourne 1992). Preparation of speech can precede conscious identification of heard words to which one is responding (Velmans 1991, Van Petten et al 1999). And in tennis, specific movements to return a fast-moving ball precede conscious identification of ball location and trajectory (McCrone 1999, Gray 2004).[i] Nonetheless, subjectively (i.e. we feel as though) we consciously perceive and respond to these perceptions (e.g. Velmans 1991, Gray 2004, Koch 2004). "
2) How does the brain provide binding: fusion of a) aspects in one modality (e.g. visual shape, color and motion), b) different modalities (e.g. sight and sound), c) temporal binding of synchronous events sensed asynchronously (e.g. sight and touch) and d) allocentric (simulated external world), egocentric (personal point of view) and enteroceptive (bodily sensation) spaces into unified conscious moments (Gray 2004)?
3) Electrophysiological correlates of consciousness and attention (e.g. gamma EEG/coherent 40 Hz) may be incompatible with the presumed neural-level correlate of consciousness"”trains of axonal action potentials (spikes)"”and network-level correlate of consciousness"”Hebbian assemblies of axonal-dendritic neurotransmitter-mediated synaptic networks.
4) The vast majority of brain activity is nonconscious. What distinguishes nonconscious activity from consciousness?" link
In the scientific king-of-the-hill game, the status quo's answers are…
1) Near-immediate conscious perception and volition are illusions; nonconscious processes initiate many actions (e.g. Velmans 1991, Koch & Crick 2001, Wegner 2002)
2) Binding"”e.g. temporal binding in Dennett's (1989) multiple drafts model"”results from edited memory, rather than real-time unified conscious perception.
3) Electrophysiological activities measured from scalp, brain surface or within brain extracellular spaces (e.g. gamma EEG/coherent 40 Hz, Section IIId) which seem to correlate with cognition and consciousness are discredited, apparently because axonal spikes fail to show synchronized firing to account for coherence (Shadlen & Movshon 1999, Crick & Koch 2001).
4) Nonconscious processes compete, with the content of the most active (or optimally synchronized) neuronal groups winning to gain consciousness (e.g. Dennett 1991). ibid
Hameroff continues with…
While this might prove true, the view has developed as a default position due to lack of credible alternative and (I will argue) faulty assumptions. Presumed input-output capabilities of individual neurons and neuronal assemblies are tailored to fit the computer analogy, omit essential neurobiological ingredients and miss the target.[iii] Specifically, I will argue that axonal spikes and chemical synaptic transmissions are not the primary currency of consciousness, that electrophysiological correlates of consciousness derive from dendritic activities linked by window-like gap junctions, that glia are involved and that quantum processes in intra-dendritic cytoskeletal microtubules are the actual substrate for consciousness.
Ten years ago Roger Penrose and I put forth a model called orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) based on quantum computation in cytoskeletal microtubules inside the brain's neurons[iv] (Penrose & Hameroff 1995, Hameroff & Penrose 1996a, 1996b, c.f. Hameroff 1998a, 1998b, Woolf & Hameroff 2001). Orch OR has been viewed skeptically by mainstream scientists and philosophers. One apparently valid reason to discount Orch OR is that technological quantum computation is designed to occur in isolation at extremely low temperatures to avoid decoherence"”disruption of seemingly fragile quantum states by thermal/environmental interactions. Thus quantum computing at brain temperature in an apparently liquid medium appears impossible. However quantum processes in biological molecules not only occur, but are enhanced at higher temperature (Ouyang & Awschalom 2003). Furthermore the neuronal interior can exist in an isolated, non-liquid gelatinous ordered state (Pollack 2001, Section Vb). Another objection"”that quantum states inside one neuron could not extend to others across cellular boundaries"”prompted the suggestion that quantum tunneling through window-like gap junctions (which essentially fuse neurons into hyper-neurons, Section IIIe) could enable such extension. Gap junction networks are now shown to be widely prevalent in the brain and to mediate gamma EEG/coherent 40 Hz neuronal activity, the best electrophysiological correlate of consciousness (Section IIId). Finally, Orch OR has been discounted because it differs so markedly from conventional approaches, despite being perfectly consistent with neurobiology.
In this paper connections among consciousness, neurobiology and quantum mechanics are proposed. They are previewed here:
Consciousness and neurobiology (Section III): The neural correlate of consciousness is in dendrites of cortical neurons interconnected by gap junctions, forming Hebbian "˜hyper-neurons'. Chemical synapses and axonal spikes convey inputs to, and outputs from, conscious processes in hyper-neuron dendrites, consistent with gamma EEG/coherent 40 Hz and the post-synaptic mechanism of general anesthesia. The molecular correlate of consciousness is the intra-dendritic cytoskeleton, specifically microtubules and related proteins whose information processing triggers axonal spikes and regulates synapses.
Neurobiology and quantum mechanics (Section IVc&d): At its core, all chemistry (and biochemistry) is quantum mechanical, though quantum effects are generally considered to wash out at supra-molecular levels due to environmental interactions (decoherence). However in some circumstances biology may utilize quantum effects at mesoscopic and macroscopic scales (e.g. Davies 2004). Specifically, certain proteins act as quantum levers whose functional conformational states are governed by weak quantum forces. Such proteins mediate effects of anesthetic gases which impair the quantum forces, erasing consciousness while sparing other brain activities. Thus only proteins directly involved in consciousness are quantum levers (which can function as quantum bits, or qubits in quantum computation). Evidence suggests that mechanisms have evolved to counter decoherence and enable large scale quantum states in the brain at 37.6 degrees centigrade.
Quantum mechanics and consciousness (Section Va): The conscious observer has been implicated in quantum mechanics since its inception. Experiments show that quantum superpositions (particles/systems existing in multiple states or locations simultaneously, governed by a quantum wavefunction) persist until measured or observed, then reduce/collapse to definite states and locations. Interpretations vary: in one form of the Copenhagen interpretation the conscious observer causes collapse/reduction of quantum superpositions, placing consciousness outside physics. David Bohm (e.g. Bohm and Hiley 1993) proposed that the wavefunction contains active information which guides the movement of particles, and that consciousness was associated with active information. Like Bohm, the multiple worlds hypothesis (Everett 1957) avoids collapse/reduction but requires an infinity of minds for each individual.[v] Decoherence theory avoids isolated superpositions (and consciousness). Henry Stapp's view (Stapp 1993) identifies consciousness with collapse/reduction but doesn't specify a cause of collapse/reduction, or distinction between conscious and nonconscious collapse/reduction. The objective reduction (OR) of Roger Penrose identifies consciousness with collapse/reduction, specifies a cause and threshold, and connects consciousness to fundamental spacetime geometry, introducing mechanisms for non-computable Platonic influences and proto-conscious qualia. And like Stapp's view, Penrose OR connects to Whitehead's philosophical approach to consciousness. ibid
Please excuse the length, but until you offer a specific argument I can only reiterate Hameroff's position.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 14, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
August 14th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Hi Zachriel,
You wrote…
Penrose argues that metaphysical hand-waving isn't "a resolution of this conundrum". Waiting for an answer to present itself hasn't worked out either.
Zachriel, we are coming up on 100 years of "quantum weirdness". It has been studied and experimented to death. Engineers and inventors aren't waiting for an explanation to the magic, they are using it in inventions. The answer must be there. Why isn't it being found? Could it be that the answer sounds like so much "woo" or even "magic"
The precursor to Orch OR is Penrose's Objective Reduction (OR). Here, Penrose is in his element. If anyone can make sense of quantum weirdness it is a guy who models Black Holes for a living and finds the optimal solution for aperiodic tiling as a hobby.
Penrose's approach was to present a hypothesis that was consistent with both quantum mechanics and general relativity. E=Ä¥/t is destined to become the new E=MC^2. It describes the gravitational self collapse of the wavefunction. The "t" in the equation stands for the time it takes for the self collapse to occur. Massive objects have lots of mass which means large gravitational energy and, therefore, extremely short collapse time. Schrodinger's cat no longer presents a problem.
Quantum experiments with different sized objects are consistent with these calculations. I suspect Penrose has accepted this as real a long time ago (at least as real as reality gets). This is just much of a given to him as the existence of Black Holes. Evidence showing that Black Holes actually exist has been mostly anticlimactic.
Penrose's OR would be considered less woo-like than other quantum interpretations if it wasn't for the immediate implications. The universe is a single interconnected wavefunction of spacetime. It makes sense. It is a resoluti