RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
May 16, 2014 at 5:36 pm
(This post was last modified: May 16, 2014 at 5:44 pm by Hegel.)
(May 16, 2014 at 10:04 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Other than misdirection, I'm not clear why people keep bringing physics in to this. Consciousness has only ever been observed/measured/recorded in living creatures with some sort of brain. Fact. That makes this a question for biologists not physicists. Everything else is just misdefinition of terms in an attempt to support supernatural and unfalsifiable speculation.
How the hell you "measure the consciousness"?
That's a circular argument.
Basically the only consciousness you can "measure" is your own, and then you infer that things that appear like you are also conscious. That's the logic.
But the basic problem is this: in what respect?
And nobody knows the answer.
So, your fact is no fact, and to claim it is a fact is a piece of pseudo-science.
Quantum mind is one theory, and it ought to be taken seriusly, as it makes perfect sense. If you ask me, it's the most appealing option, but this my subjective opinion.
Calling quantum theories of consciousness "supernatural" is beyond ridiculous. These models are 100% naturalist, based on, for Christ's sake, an interpretation the best verified scientific theory (QM) in whole human history!
(May 16, 2014 at 5:33 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:Quote:No, you did not. What at pickup-shohuff expressed, was a doubt concerning the adequacy of their interpretation of this alleged evidence.
He said he had heard of some article by them, and was skeptical whether they have interpreted their references correctly, and I asked is that the article.
To clarify: I was saying that the only articles I had read about the evidence in support of the Orch OR model directly cited Hameroff and Penrose basically saying, "See, our theory is right," which I found odd because I would expect an unbiased article to say, "Hameroff and Stuart claim this... while others object, saying it means this..." But none of that was in there. Hameroff and Penrose may have even written the original article, I don't recall, that other sites then simply borrowed from.
I think the articles themselves even included mention of Orch OR in the headline or subtitle.
Ok. I have only read Penrose's Emperor's New Mind and the article I gave the link to and couple of its reviews. So I am no specialist. So I got you somewhat wrong. In any case they base their evidence on some findings in quantum biology concerning photo-synthesis and more directly some research on microtubulars, if I remenber correctly, which falsify the argument based on decoherence.
Personally, I used to believe the theory was an error because of the decoherence argument, but now it seems that I have to reconsider it.
I am not a Believer, and obviously the theory can be false. In any case, I respect it as a good guess.
