RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
May 16, 2014 at 12:08 pm
(This post was last modified: May 16, 2014 at 12:09 pm by Cato.)
(May 16, 2014 at 11:18 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Last time I looked quantum mechanics was considered natural. While classical physics works well enough for describing processes at the macroscopic scale, the fundamental reality is still quantum. I fail to understand why the loudest advocates of science will not incorporate the most recent theories when it comes to the mind-brain problem other that trying to avoid findings that undermine their assumptions about how the world should work.
Case in point. Some quantum effects show retro causality. Meanwhile a recent neuroscientist claims that conscious choices occur after the unconscious has already set into motion the results of the decision. I believe the two very scientific findings are consistent and together support interactive dualism.
QM is natural, but it's those of you wanting to invoke what we see at the quantum level as a direct explanation for higher level phenomenon are guilty of not appreciating the difference in scale.
Consider this...
We are getting closer to being able to use QM to quantify electron pair bond lengths and angles, but still aren't there. And this is for simple hydrogen bonding. Now consider the thousands of electron pairs in organic molecules. Next consider the molecular interaction in any given cell. How many cells are we talking about for simple neurological processes?
The descriptive problem you present by invoking the subconscious is still for now a matter of brain chemistry. The fact that much of our information processing is done without explicit awareness doesn't mean the mechanism for the processing is somehow different. I am fond of Jonathan Haidt's elephant and rider analogy for understanding the interplay.
