'I' am not consciousness

angelica wrote:

So, you don't have specific data in reference to meditation, itself, then. How can you assume what the process is, considering the "delay" thing was not at all about meditation, which is an altered state of consciousness. The Libet studies you talk abour refer to normal consciousness, in my understanding. It's not logical to apply the dynamics of an orange to an apple, imo.

angelica wrote:

You're applying one theory on regular consciousness to an altered state of consciousness. It's as fair game as any opinion.

wikipedia.org wrote:

The quantum mind theory is founded on the premise that quantum theory is necessary to fully understand the mind and brain, particularly concerning an explanation of consciousness. This is considered a minority opinion in science, although it does have the support of the well-known mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose. Other proponents include Stuart Hameroff, Karl Pribram and Henry Stapp.

Introduction

A key argument underlying the quantum mind thesis is that classical mechanics cannot fully explain consciousness. Proponents have suggested that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function, and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.

The quantum mind thesis does not as yet have any evidence to confirm its validity, but some role of quantum processes in consciousness has not been completely ruled out. Sufficient understanding of the operation of the brain could prove the proposition false.

Motivation

Consciousness Banished

A common argument underlying the quantum mind thesis is that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, if only because Galileo and Newton (together with their admirers, viz., Locke, Hobbes and Descartes) excluded the secondary qualities from the physical world.

Fritjof Capra writes:

To make it possible for scientists to describe nature mathematically, Galileo postulated that they should restrict themselves to studying the essential properties of material bodies - shapes, numbers, and movement - which could be measured and quantified. Other properties, like color, sound, taste, or smell, were merely subjective mental projections which should be excluded from the domain of science. [1]

Minimization of Mystery

The philosopher David Chalmers half-jokingly claims that the motivation for Quantum Mind theories is: "a Law of Minimization of Mystery: consciousness is mysterious and quantum mechanics is mysterious, so maybe the two mysteries have a common source".[2]

Ongoing Debate

Science

The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that the structures of the brain are much too large for quantum effects to be important. It is impossible for coherent quantum states to form for very long in the brain and impossible for them to exist at scales on the order of the size of neurons.

This does not imply that classical mechanics can explain consciousness, but that quantum effects including superposition and entanglement are insignificant. Quantum chemistry is required to understand the actions of neurotransmitters, for example.

One well-known critic of the quantum mind is Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function, "This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way"[3].

Philosophy

Another line of criticism is that no physical theory is well suited to explaining consciousness, particularly in its most problematical form, phenomenal consciousness or qualia, known as the hard problem of consciousness. It is not so much that colours and tastes and feelings --qualia or secondary qualities -- have been deliberately banished, but more that they cannot be captured in any mathematical description, which means they cannot be explicitly represented in physics, since all physical theory is expressed in mathematical language (as explained in Eugene Wigner's famous paper The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences). If no physical theory can express qualia, no physical theory can fully explain consciousness. Replacing the mathematical apparatus of classical physics with the mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics is therefore of no help in understanding consciousness, and indeed there is no known example of a quantum equation which encapsulates a taste or colour.

As David Chalmers puts it:

Nevertheless, quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same difficulties as neural or computational theories. Quantum phenomena have some remarkable functional properties, such as nondeterminism and nonlocality. It is natural to speculate that these properties may play some role in the explanation of cognitive functions, such as random choice and the integration of information, and this hypothesis cannot be ruled out a priori. But when it comes to the explanation of experience, quantum processes are in the same boat as any other. The question of why these processes should give rise to experience is entirely unanswered. [4]

Other philosophers, such as Patricia and Paul Churchland and Daniel Dennett[5] reject the idea that there is anything puzzling about consciousness in the first place.

angelica wrote:

Regular states of consciousness are "significantly" different than the diverse varying altered states. Therefore to assume that what applies in one state also applies in another is hugely an assumption, and I don't consider doing so either factual, or logical. If you have evidence that Libet's delay occurs in meditation, I'd certainly be willing to consider that, however.