Cut and paste much?
This is wild speculation which could never be proven precisely because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The 50/50 bit betrays a lack of understanding of the function of probabilities in QM.
At first I concluded that you were sympathetic to the idea of emergent properties as an explanation for consciousness; however, I realized this can't be true since you go straight from QM to decision making. I think it is a mistake to not consider brain construction, composition, and function since we don't have evidence of consciousness in anything not having a brain (some things having a brain don't exhibit what we call consciousness).
Until we learn more I consider consciousness to be a property of the brain, not an unproven characteristic of QM. Your post is mysticism precisely because you are taking a poorly understood phenomenon of QM and applying it to events perceived on a much larger scale. It's like saying there is something about a particular rock that gives a pyramid its shape.
(January 24, 2014 at 5:00 am)schrodingerserection Wrote: If I may be so bold, it may be that when a quantum measurement is made on a particle to determine whether it's in State A or State B, in some rudimentary way the particle chooses A or B. The degree of "incentive" to be A vs. to be B corresponds with the probability calculated from theory. You could call it a dilemma. If the probabilities are not 50/50, it's a weighted dilemma (it's "emotionally" "leaning" one way), but still a dilemma in which a choice must be made.
This is wild speculation which could never be proven precisely because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The 50/50 bit betrays a lack of understanding of the function of probabilities in QM.
At first I concluded that you were sympathetic to the idea of emergent properties as an explanation for consciousness; however, I realized this can't be true since you go straight from QM to decision making. I think it is a mistake to not consider brain construction, composition, and function since we don't have evidence of consciousness in anything not having a brain (some things having a brain don't exhibit what we call consciousness).
Until we learn more I consider consciousness to be a property of the brain, not an unproven characteristic of QM. Your post is mysticism precisely because you are taking a poorly understood phenomenon of QM and applying it to events perceived on a much larger scale. It's like saying there is something about a particular rock that gives a pyramid its shape.
