TED Conversations

Murshid Markan

Alcatel-Lucent

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How randomness of a photon particle in a two slit experiment could explain the phenomena of Consciousness and Decision-Making

If we stress on the Thomas young's double-slit experiment in which we ought to see that the photon beam when passed through the double slit we observe the wave nature of the photon particle as we get a scattered bands pattern on the wall unlike the single-slit where we observe the particle nature of the photon as it projects a single band pattern, in this experiment we can see that the behavior of the photon as a particle or a wave is random and so is its position after passing the double slit wall. Now i would like to relate this to the consciousness, when we face a situation in our life, how we perceive or react is as random as the photon. So i would like to ask people out in TED related to the consciousness studies is that, if we work on the principles of "Orch-Or" theory that says that the quantum superposition exists till the difference in the space-time curvatures is significant. so when we think with our conscious mind firstly how we can relate different quantum state as different reactions by a human mind and how can we get a clarity in decision making when the decisions are in space-time curvatures very close to each other. Secondly, the "Copenhagen experiment" explanation of the superposition failing under observation would hinder our research of certainty of the photon's position, How can we resolve the randomness of the particle and correspondingly in my case the absolute truth (perfect decision for a situation) for the conscious human mind. An experiment by Roger Penrose FELIX states that an electron is present at two different location and by using mirrors we can get a single position of this experiment. But, How we humans can tackle the randomness of our conscious mind. What we need to practice to reduce this randomness in our mind. How we can have a definite answer for a problem in our mind. How we humans can be certain in our thoughts.

+1
Share:
progress indicator
  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

  • Jun 3 2012: Murshid !

    Thanks for the interesting topic !
    I think Chris is right , there is no randomness as such. let's call it something like 'chaotic dynamics'. There is order in everything, but we don't have a pattern for it and can't recognise it.

    ",,, we can get clarity in our thoughts by increasing our consciousness (decreasing the randomness)...."

    I think we can have the 'feeling' of clarity developing our imaginative consciousness.The field of ' imaginative consciousness' is not less real than the field of physical consciousness, but it is different.
    It has its own logic , let's call it 'fuzzy' logic , its own laws and its own 'is-ness'. Quite literally it is a 'higher frequency ' state of consciousness and only humans ( as far as i know) can access it.

    " How we humans can be certain in our thoughts."

    We'd better not :)
    Everything we think we know is our coherent belief system and we should hold it lightly, allowing it to change with new inputs or even let it go if it starts to collapse upon itself.
    Paradoxically, being not certain gives more clarity in our mind .
  • thumb
    May 21 2012: Sub: Cosmos Quest
    There lies a higher dimensional knowledge - the origins- cosmology vedas interlinks.
    One should search the subjects in depth or support original works to avoid confusion.
    To mislead is very easy but to identify the spirit of enlightenment needs
    concentration, meditation and Dedication- prerequisites for advancement.
    UNITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS-OM- IN SCIENCE, RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY {An Introduction](Revised Feb. 2002)
    (Reg No: TX 5-574-909 d/- May 14,2002 ) (No# Pages 100,Figures 17).
    ISBN: 978-1-257-99508-0 publisher- LULU....ebook

    COSMOLOGY VEDAS INTERLINKS-BOOKS INFORMATION May 2011
    [ISBN:978-1-257-96228-0]
    BOOKS BY VIDYARDHI NANDURI http://vidyardhicosmology.blogspot.com/
  • thumb
    Jun 9 2012: Natasha,

    Yes, I think that academic politics would create resistance for my ideas, although there should be no specific objection as far as I know. There should be no functional difference between saying that we see because we actively sense matter or that we passively interpret collisions of matter, except that the former makes sense right off the bat and the latter requires some fictional abstraction layer of 'emergent property'. In the end something has to make sense of something, I only say that it really has to happen on every level or not at all, while our approach in recent years assumes that it must occur spontaneously without real explanation.

    I care that it's scientific because ultimately I am trying to provide a more universal TOE, and spiritual terms tend to alienate the possibility of object legitimacy. I see subject and object as consequences of sense which divides itself into them, and the opposite, sense is the consequence of the symmetry of subject and object unity-beneath-division. I think that you can treat the universe like a material machine and it works like that, right up to the point of trying to mechanize consciousness itself. Only then does the native priority of sense before substance become scientifically relevant.

    It takes a lot of words to describe why sense might be an appropriate word, but only because we are unfamiliar with the concept of a truly neutral monism. It should be unfamiliar, because we are not impartial. We experience the universe as a biological organism, so we are biased about what the universe means to us. Spirit makes it seem like the cosmos should honor the sanctity of life and meaning whereas sense only ensures that categories of experience tend to have their own momentum.

    I agree Unit of Subjectivity sounds incomplete, but no more so than 'c'. It's just a framework to begin to explore the relation of quanta and qualia. I think that our mind is part of what divides and unites the two.

    Thanks to you too!
    • Jun 10 2012: I am not really sure what you folks are talking about but I do agree that the word "spirit" is not very helpful at this juncture in time, loaded as it is with religious connotations.
      I have a little challenge for you. Someone once said, "An idea that requires polysyllabic words to describe it, is probably not an idea worth describing." That is a bit of a stretch but, can you spell it out in layman's terms? Call it an exercise you will eventually need to do to get your interesting ideas across to the general public.

      Cheers and keep up the exploration!
      • thumb
        Jun 10 2012: Hi Mike,

        How about this.

        1. The universe will seem to support either faith or reason. Reason requires belief in disbelief and faith requires disbelief in disbelief. In between reason and faith is reality, but neither reason without faith nor faith without reason can make sense of everything. The insistence that it can is ultimately a bias that tends to become crazy and dangerous if acted upon completely in real life.

        2. All of the shortcomings of religion and science can be accounted for by each side mistaking objects for subjects and subjects for objects.

        3. We can fix this by looking at how we look at the universe, so that we take our own experience more literally and physical existence more figuratively. Photons become nothing but atomic experiences. Consciousness becomes the physical inertia of events which tie body, brain, world, and lifetime together.

        4. Consciousness is what divides the universe into symmetrical parts. It separates being, doing, and time and matter, energy, and space. This division makes it so that the former are presented as interior and ranging widely in quality, realism, and meaning while the latter is presented as exterior, real, and meaningless.

        5. This division replaces the idea of the Big Bang as an event in time and space, so that the Big Bang is the division of the universe into subjective times in objective places.
        • Jun 11 2012: Hi, Craig !
          Let's simplify, hope you don't mind :)

          We are consciousness that says: " I am not consciousness that thinks"

          We are creatures that think /see/observe in Time, but it is not where the real action is.
      • Jun 11 2012: Mike !

        The question is not why science should use symbols, like 'spirit', the question is : why shouldn't it ?
        What is science in its essence if not the empirical observation of Spirit ? :)
        • Jun 13 2012: Hi Natasha and Craig. I am having semantic overload! I thought science was the empirical observation of matter and energy. If spirit is another word for matter and energy then it is a metaphor. A lovely and well-intentioned metaphor to be sure. As I see it the biggest stumbling block with science is/are pompous ass scientists who insist that what we cannot yet measure does not exist. And conversely the biggest problem with faithists is that they insist that there are things that exist without any proof to back it up (the Flying Spaghetti Monster for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster ).
          And maybe this is what you two are talking about...
          I certainly lean towards the material world because I notice definite cause and effects that I can't deny. There are a million examples, whereas the spirit, sense or faith aspects of life are contextual and subjective. More like feelings or intuition or dreams; they exist but are difficult to measure and know for certain. Even our own feelings and intuitions; much less those of others.
          What if Natasha the "real action" actually is in Time and the rest just a dream. Your dream. You are operating on theories and hunches aren't you? For some reason I am reminded of Zeno's paradoxes. How do they fit in with these theories.
          Forgive me if my questions are naive.
      • Jun 13 2012: Hi, Mike !

        I agree with you and Craig that the word 'spirit ' does not quite fit to the scientific context, because of its religious connotation and 'vague' descriptive quality.
        But...
        Is 'exotic' particle, " spooky action in a distance ", god's ( 'god damn ' ) particle or ghost particle any better ?

        "What if Natasha the "real action" actually is in Time and the rest just a dream. Your dream."

        I'll have no problems with accepting your version, if you can help me with the definition of the word 'real' in Time frame reference.
        What is real in illusion ? :)

        " You are operating on theories and hunches aren't you? "
        Maybe....with slight correction though, I test theories by intuition.
        Certainty is a kind of impossible condition for intuition, but it provides you with 'bigger' picture where interconnectedness of everything is clearly seen in a dim image .Mind on the other hand, demands certainty and instead has the turtles all the way down or up, which pretty much the same.
        So, there are no answers only choices.

        "I certainly lean towards the material world ..."

        What is matter ? How particles get their mass ?


        Thanks for your 'naive ' questions and forgive me for mine ! :)
        • Jun 13 2012: I was listening to this music video as I read your reply and it brought me to tears.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQjwkXrcUrs

          Somehow the two have meaning and relevance to my "spirit"... which I can't and don't want to explain. You wrote about this in another post about the opera I think.... Some things defy explanation in spite of the innate desire we have to find answers. Some things blur the boundaries, or perhaps fit only in the Big Tent of Integral Theory. Some things I have to accept I will never know. Uncertainty seems so much more certain than certainty (of which I am uncertain). Back to the paradoxical aspects of being a brain in a vat.... how can we know?
          I am enjoying this dialogue. Thank you
        • Jun 13 2012: Natahsa

          "Is 'exotic' particle, " spooky action in a distance ", god's ( 'god damn ' ) particle or ghost particle any better ?"

          Brava! Brava! Brava!!!
      • Jun 13 2012: WOW ! John Butler is great ! But I don't hear Ocean there, it sounds like 'zigest' watched through the eyes of an infant :)
        Thanks for the link !
    • Jun 11 2012: Craig !
      Sure, you are right whatever you choose, it's your thing...
      I like this :
      " Fiction is primordial, fact is contrived."
      But how have you come up with it ? !
      I guess, it's my problem, I don't quite understand your retina/ rod/ glutamate description.
      BTW, what do you think about the 'third eye', pineal gland ? Pineal cytostructure have similar retinal cells, and you know about its divine status in ancient sacred traditions; the mind behind the matrix.
      Almost literally, it sees !
  • thumb
    Jun 9 2012: Photons then, and the double-slit experiment give us this continuum of religious-figurative-metaphorical-subjective to empirical-literal-logical-objective condensed into very limited terms. We are squeezing the cosmos as hard as we can, backing it into a corner and demanding that it show us what and how, but all it's giving us is upside down hints at our own who and why. It refuses to answer our query because we are asking the wrong question.

    Why this is the case I think is because the who and the why are not a reality that 'simply is' but rather the ground of being, the meta-fact which can only 'seem like'. 'Seems like' is an invitation for direct participation, which is an essential, irreducible, and materially unexplainable property of the cosmos. 'Simply is' can be derived as a second order logic of 'seems like', being experiences that consistently seem, in some way, like they seemed before every time we check.

    The double slit experiment, entanglement, decoherence... all of these are upside down terms for sense. Sense is the missing insight that ties cosmos, psyche, mind, body, time-space-matter-energy-information-theology together.
  • thumb
    Jun 9 2012: (continued)

    Consider that all observations of photons have only ever been through measuring their indirect effects on the matter which makes up our instruments (even the eyes and brains of the humans using the instruments, as well as our native optical sensors).

    Consider that light is not photons. Visual perception is quite removed from photons, relying on the concept of 'signals' to propagate 'information' about the optical environment. In reality our optic nerve is detecting synaptic glutamate concentration, opsin topology, or changes to retinal isomers more than photons. Our ability to dream and imagine in darkness shows that indeed, no external photons at all are necessary to generate realistic images in our awareness.

    What is a signal? It's an anthropomorphic conceit really. We see synchronized behaviors on various levels, molecular, cellular, psychological, and we assume a sequential process of production. We talk about electromagnetism as if it were a physical presence in a vacuum, but we have only ever seen it in matter. Without matter to reflect, diffract, reflect light, or to be illuminated by light, there is nothing to see. No sparks or light rays in a vacuum. No accumulations of errant photons in pools or crusts. Energy may in fact be nothing but 'things that happen to matter' - stories that matter tells.

    Some stories are very literal and unambiguous, and become more so the further into the microcosm and macrocosm you go...until you hit the Classical limit, and then...it all flips anti-Copernican and becomes very Zen, with virtual this and Dark that. Particle waves and anti-matter.

    Other stories are the opposite. Not about spinning objects inside of larger whirling ensembles, but about characters and destiny. Super-signifying epics full of arch-symmetry, poetry, and deep metaphor. Fiction blurs into literalism and fantasy turns solemn, reverent and monastic as formalism emerges to re-link (rel-ligion) the figurative with the literal.
  • thumb
    Jun 9 2012: I have a different conjecture on consciousness and its relation to physics which involves completely reinterpreting the last century or so of physics. There's no way that I can talk about this without sounding like a crackpot, and in the sense that I have no formal qualifications or skill in physics, I am a crackpot, but I suspect that I may actually turn out to be a 'crackpot that was right' in the long run.

    In my defense I can only say that I have come to physics through the backdoor, from consciousness and a lifetime of studying it first hand, from scratch, even avoiding most philosophy. /disclaimer

    Here it is:

    Photons may not exist.

    What exists is the sensitivity to changes in matter. Sensitivity across a vacuum, sensitivity on top of sensitivity, on top of insensitivity...all manner of layers and symmetries of sensemaking and significance.

    I know, I can feel your eyes rolling from here. "What about the photoelectric effect? What about lasers and Feynman and photomultipliers..supercolliders...the whole Standard Model?? You are an idiot! We know photons exist. Quantum Mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of physics!'

    I agree, and I may be an idiot too, but not because of this idea. I have spoken to a number of people about this, and while physics professors tend to become very angry, none of them has said anything to make me doubt my proposal (not surprising for a crackpot - but I mean I have not heard any argument yet that I have not already considered). I'm not married to the idea. My concept of a cosmos that is fundamentally grounded in sense experience rather than matter across space or information processing does not depend on photons being real or not, but they become redundant and explainable if we consider the possibility of primordial detection-response (I call it Quorum Mechanics) capacities associated with matter. To be precise, it is a capacity which is ontologically perpendicular to matter-in-space. It is sense-through-time.
    • Jun 9 2012: Craig !
      WOW !
      You don't sound like a crackpot !: )
      I think, a 'backdoor' is quite an entrance to quantum physics.
      Stripped of all complexities it can be reduced to mystic insight :
      " The knower is the known"
      There is nothing really exists but relationships.
      The universe is an answer, we need to find a right question.
      What you call 'sense' is usually called 'spirit', would you agree that it sounds pretty familiar then:
      SPIRIT is the missing insight that ties cosmos, psyche, mind, body, time-space-matter-energy-information-theology together.

      " Energy may in fact be nothing but 'things that happen to matter' - stories that matter tells." ( !!!!!! )

      And matter is ???
      The Svetasvatara Upanisad says:
      kesagra-sata-bhagasya
      satamsah sadrsatmakah
      jivah suksma-svarupo 'yam
      sankhyatito hi cit-kanah
      ‘If we divide the tip of a hair into a hundred parts and then take one of these parts and divide it again into a hundred parts, that very fine division is the size of but one of the numberless living entities. They are all cit-kana, particles of spirit, not matter.'

      So... Energy may be nothing but things that happen to spirit ...

      Does it make any sense ? :)
      Thank you !
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2012: Hi Natasha,

        Thanks, and yes, the word Spirit is another way of describing it, but I think that word is too loaded to be accepted as scientific truth. Although spirit captures the connotations of subjectivity, feeling, enthusiasm, trans-material, immortal, and primordial, it is off-center to my purposes in that it can denote absolute disconnection with material, and a reification of temporal experience into a kind of pseudo-physical force that literally travels through space causing things to happen from an omniscient perspective. I think it's more subtle and complicated.

        While sense isn't a great substitute, I think it has some advantages: (See http://multisenserealism.com/9-sense-motive/). It connotes first person subjectivity on different levels, sensation-perception-understanding-intuition, but remains neutral as far as giving privilege to either concretely ordinary experience or profound, supernatural concepts. Sense is embodied by natural qualities as well as intellectual abstraction. It links information with real world participation.

        "cit-kana" nice. I would like to formalize these concepts in a way that might be more easily integrated into Western frameworks. Cit-jana I would call maximally flattened, ie fragmented qualia (or quanta) at what I would call the Planck-Turing limit. I have a proposal to describe subjectivity on a scale from maximal qualia (the Totality, Monad, or greatest possible inertial frame, the eternal moment, Sri Krsna, Ein Sof, Tao, Zero Point Field, etc) to minimal that I am calling the Chalmeroff Scale (http://multisenserealism.com/2012/04/14/proposed-unit-of-subjectivity-the-chalmeroff/).

        I use the terms sense and motive as the essential principles, which correlate to

        spirit and will (anthropomorphic level)
        electric and magnetic fields (but inside out)
        matter/density/inertia/formation and energy/acceleration/transformation
        significance/symmetry/augmentation and entropy/mystery/cancellation as 'informational' consequences
        • Jun 9 2012: Craig,
          correct me if I am wrong, I guess your theory is consistent with the general body of scientific knowledge, as you understand it, but because it attempts to reach a deeper level of knowing than that mapped out by the scientific 'theorem method' of step-by-step reasoning, its conclusions may not be fully explicable in terms of the current scientific mindset and most likely will be rejected by it.
          Why should you care how 'scientific' it looks like ?
          You need tons of words to explain what is 'sense' in the context of your context, while one word is enough. Spirit is a symbol, it does not imply that it is not real. It is maybe one real force carrier for weak and strong... and gravity. Sounds weired, but at the moment, I don't have any other picture .
          You are right , it is heavily loaded with 'supernatural' connotation and this connotation should be removed, there is nothing supernatural, nothing is external anywhere.But 'spirit' conveys reverence and it is perfectly natural feeling, when we are dealing with a mystery .
          Symbol, be it 'spirit' or 'god' resonates, this means that one may access the ideas they reflect without mediation.
          I could be wrong :)
          'Unit of subjectivity' sounds a bit incomplete :) In the realm where there is no objectivity, there is no subjectivity either, one exists only by the virtue of the other.
          When subjectivity enters the picture, you need to balance it and introduce the 'unit of objectivity'.... So, it must be simply a unit. A quantum is the minimum unit of any physical or not physical entity involved in an interaction, it is subjective and objective (or neither) by itself. But it doesn't give this sensation of 'spirit' as cit-kanah does. I think, human brain is designed to retain narratives, symbols not words.
          Frankly, I don't know, but i believe , that 'it's our mind, which is moving"
          " is it the wind moving or is it the flag? The monk answers, neither, its your mind that is moving. "

          Thanks for responding !
        • Jun 11 2012: Chris !

          Actually, it was you who opened me to the idea ... Tease out the cryptic messages of ancient sacred texts and you'll see science there.

          Thank you !!!
  • Jun 8 2012: The truth is, there is absolutely no way to make sure that there isn't a problem in the mind. Everything is generated by the brain including perception, logic, the quantum world, any and all subjective experience. The debate comes into play when the question is raised, is consciousness a product of the brain? I of course do not have an answer that is provable. When you get into these arcane arguments what really happens is you get differences based on the individuals view of human nature. One side seems to pervert quantum physics to fit their world view, that everything is connected and after death we all go back to the original source of matter and sit in some blissful homeostasis. The other side sees human nature as being very susceptible to making things true that we either need to be true based on the life we have built, or we must believe in order to sooth neurosis.
    When tackling consciousness I would like to use the analogy the eye can't see the eye. What I mean by that is if your looking for consciousness with your own consciousness, then you can never really be sure what you have found is actually what consciousness is. The hunter can't be the hunted. Its similar to the idea of introspection. You cannot fully see your own thoughts why? Because your seeing those thoughts with different thoughts that are all originating from the same place, the brain. You just can't get outside of that. Someone else can see something about you that you cannot, but similarly since we can't trade consciousness with one another, they can never fully understand you either. This just seems to be a truth of this existence. If there is an answer to this then I think neuroscience holds the key, but remember when tackling this topic everything you experience is governed by the brain.
  • thumb
    May 16 2012: i researched it a little on wikipedia, and here is my take on this. they are talking about the brain being a quantum computer instead of a turing machine. this would allow the brain to solve problems faster than a turing machine could. it is neat, but we have two problems with it. first, it is just an idea, and has no evidence backing it up in any way. nil. second, it has nothing to do with consciousness. consciousness is not speed or ability to solve problems in a particular computational complexity class. or penrose suggests that if we build a quantum computer, it will become conscious? i doubt so. this entire consciousness idea is just added on to sell the story better.
    • thumb
      May 17 2012: Hey you researched on wiki... your first part says that brain being a quantum computer... see every element in this world can be classified into.... classical world (Physically visible) and the quantum world (physically undetectable).... now if we say that our brain is a quantum computer then there should be some relevance in saying that it has all the quantum world elements in an atom.. if you agree on that then you should also know that they will behave in the same way inside or outside the body... so when we have consciousness inside the body we can create consciousness outside the body..... but do anything in this world have consciousness as the human do have.... i think no.. that would be the answer.. but have you ever studied plants... photosynthesis... it involves light means photons.. means quantum world.. menas there can be consciousness there also...

      Penrose is working hard to get the solution to the randomness we find in the characteristics of photon... and if he succeeds in solving it and gets a definite position of a photon at a particular moment of time... then we might get the same in our mind... means we can get clarity in our thoughts by increasing our consciousness (decreasing the randomness).... here comes the answer for this problem in human mind respect...

      We need to build a strong consciousness... that means we need to build microtubules larger than before we want enormous amount of information flow in our mind and stores in these long tubes of information... the microtubules..

      People start working on the consciousness to get close to enormous information... may be we get close to positive poles by this...
    • thumb
      May 17 2012: As far as the human brain is concerned, it is merely a tool or hardware. When we talk of a technological system we see that any tech. system works on a combination of HW, SW and Power. Therefore for the human system, the hardware is the body, the software is the consciousness and the spirit is the source of energy. Any technological is having two parts, the front end and the back end. We may relate the front end to the classical mechanics where we get the reduced and approximate singular results and then the back end where all the computation is done where there are options with different probabilities as the Quantum Mechanics. So now how can an electron or any subatomic particle at a particular instant of time mathematically be present at more that one position. Every particle in the classical world is having aligned with it a wave envelope which is a probability distribution. In the pre action state, the mathematics shows several possibilities and as soon as the action takes place, all the results are reduced to a single point or the particle is said to be a only one point at that instant. Which shows a collapse of the wave function. Therefore as and when the decision is made, the rest of the possibilities collapse. It is very important to understand that what ever occurs in the classical world is a reduced and simplified result of the enormous amount of computation which takes place in the quantum world or the back end of the physical system. In technological systems we use programming languages such as assembly, Cobol or C++. God does not use C++ for the cosmic programming. He uses the particle, wave and time to do all the computation. He has his benchmark which I refer to as the Quantum Desired and then the action or the option which we choose as the Quantum Actual. Therefore Quantum Desired-Quantum Actual is the Performance of an individual. A quantum computer will never be conscious as consciousness is not in the tool.
  • thumb
    May 16 2012: Mind is not an entity, it is a construct. There is not relationship between reality of an electron & an assumption which is a thought. Our mind behaves depending upon several factors such as context, personality & stimulus. A relative change in one factor could present several possibilities. We have yet to figure out the functioning of human brain.
    • thumb
      May 17 2012: Gurinder might be you haven't studied the functioning of human brain... Try this.. Human brain is full of nerve cells, synapse, neurons and most importantly a cyto-skeleton... We have microtubules inside the cyto-skeleton.
      Now, if we discuss about the microtubules these are the combination of protein tubulins and these carry the photons of information charge... the microtubules form and disintegrate on its own... the time between the making and the disintegration is the time we have charges of consciouness or the flow of truth or the real information...

      When the doctor gives you anesthesia he actually stop the making of these microtubules and hence you loose consciousness....

      This is one part of my answer...

      The other part says..

      when our human mind contains neurons, charge (electrons), photons then how our brain different form the other atoms and composite elements of atom in the world.

      the photons or electrons in our brain should work in the same way as the photons, electrons outside our human mind should work..
      • thumb
        May 17 2012: Murshid your views are too presumptive. Are you a neuro-scientist or a doctor to speak on the subject with such authority? If so i would agree with you completely as i am a Marketing Professor not a scientist. I have also known that living & non-living matter are two different entities & incomparable. I am fairly imaginative person but such juxtaposition looks too far fetched flight of imagination.
        • thumb
          May 17 2012: The study of human brain in terms of anesthesia where consciousness is absent... is very minutely done by Prof. Stuart Hameroff an Anesthesia Expert. I have used those excerpts to explain you the idle mind functioning in terms of information flow through microtubules.
        • thumb
          Jun 8 2012: Neuroscientists and doctors are by necessity dependent on current and past knowledge, keeping their skills safe and dependable. It gives the impression of absolute authority and certainty.

          But is there any such thing as certainty? Future knowledge as yet has no roots in our consciousness, so has to depend on something other than what science gives us, in order to courageously depict 'what could be', rather than to safely grasp 'what is'.

          It is precisely the "far-fetched flights of imagination" that moves idle, stagnating knowledge into new territory.
  • thumb
    May 15 2012: The double slit experiment has nothing to do with how the brain works.
    And neural activity is never random.

    All this is pseudo-science, hasty conclusions to mysterious phenomena, and yet another attempt to reconcile sex-life and protons, happiness and gravity, etc...
    • thumb
      May 21 2012: Gerald.. my motive here is to get the information about the way the double slit experiment makes us to come up with some mathematical conclusions on the certainty of the photon particle at a moment of time... when we see the brain activity in terms of the microtubule protein tubulins showing the quantum states switching according to the ORCH-OR theory then we can relate the quantum state switching of the photon being a particle or a wave and being a wave we can determine the position of the photon particle at a moment in the wave structure.

      The point can be explained here with some relevance shown to the brain activity that are defined under the protein tubulins... if we somehow reduce the quantum state switching in the brain as per the ORCH-OR theory says the BING !! the moment the superposition is reduced and we get a one state microtubule that state the certainty of the protein tubulin can be deduced..

      So i want to relate the double slit experiment to give brain quantum states of protein tubulin a certainty and hence consciousness attained..
  • Jun 15 2012: Apologies for arriving late.
    If you are interested I've made plenty of comments on TED on both consciousness and quantum mechanics.
    The gist is:-

    People are objects that perceive and therefore experience is expressed as "I perceive X" and NOT as "I have consciousness of X". Consciousness does not exist. The idea arises from a misunderstanding of the concept of perception.

    If we analyse the real then a genuine explanation will be in terms of something not-real for otherwise the explanation is circular of infinitely regressive. We see because of light but light itself cannot be seen or visualised in principle. The traditional confusion in interpreting quantum mechanics is the futile attempt to explain the real in terms of itself.
  • thumb
    Jun 13 2012: “I visualize a vast grid of 0-1 flip flop grid squares whose pattern of 0 (dark) and 1 (light) changes constanly. 0 is irrational or untrue belief. 1 is rational or true. The patterns are intricate. The aggregate of dark squares at any one nanoseconed is the “streak of the irrational” in the “world soul”**. 0/1, strife/love, false/true, yin/yang, form II/form I. But consider: the irrational (false) beliefs generate objectified thought-formations although untrue! So irreal reality is repeatedly generated.”-Philip K. Dick.
    **Plato
  • thumb
    Jun 11 2012: I feel the human mind is more than the sum of its parts. Consciousness is a ghost or phantom of the mechanical operation of the brain much the same as stereo is a phantom reallity for hi-fi speakers.

    The higher order level thinking a particular brain is capable of the stronger the illusion of self conciousness. I don't think this has anything to do with the co-operation of the left and right side of the brain.

    The type of brain that a human is born with is naturally robust in forming this illusion...as only mechanical operations can be.

    So, can this phantom or illusion be considered an actual reality...or must something be solid, present, definable by it's parts befor it can be considered real? If we had a definite answer to that then mabye we would have a way forward to encapturing the essence of consciousness.

    Of course all this is just an idea that just popped into my head...the ghost in the machine at work!
  • Jun 8 2012: Why would you want to reduce the randomness of your mind? Without it you would be a machine. Randomness is the juicy stuff of life. Imagination, creativity, evolutionary mutation, etc

    Cause and effect is a fairly practical tool to utilize but emergent properties blur the lines. Cause and effect are only meaningful terms when "framed" with a context which focuses our attention in a particular way. Everything can be traced back to the Big Bang as the original cause.

    The cause of Chris's more esoteric views is the sum of his experiences in life. The effect is his attempts to convince Krisztian. And vice versa...

    In my solipsistic worldview I am creating both of you for my entertainment! Prove me wrong!

    Nothing can be known for absolute certain but probability means some things are very reliable, like gravity and death. I think science is the practice of trying to create a little more certainty, as opposed to speculation and belief.
  • thumb
    Jun 8 2012: I don't think we make decisions the way you describe them. Well you don't actually describe them, but you sprinkle magic all over neural activity. If computation was so complicated, it'd be hell to programm a video game.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jun 1 2012: and how do we know that?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 1 2012: i can name you like hundreds of things that might have random elements, including a toss of a coin. but you said it is a fact. facts are not proven by lack of counterexample. your task is to prove. until than, this is just a unbacked claim.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 1 2012: and how do we know that? you just repeated your claim.

          as of now, it is an open question whether randomness exists in the universe or not. but most physicists subscribe to the idea that it does. so if you know otherwise, time to tell.
      • Jun 3 2012: Hi, Krisztián,
        what we call 'rendom' is really a lack of information or a matter of ignorance. It is synonymous with :
        we don't know, it is outside the scope of our models."
        "... If one knew the initial force of one's thumb on the coin, its interaction with the air molecules, its reaction to the force of gravity, etc., the path of the coin would be predetermined from a unique solution of its equation of motion. Thus, one would know in advance if it would land head or tail."
        But we do not know all of these details and in our ignorance it looks like random.
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2012: at least you believe so. but physics does not. as of now, the question is open. but most physicists believe that quantum processes are truly random, not just apparently random.
      • Jun 3 2012: What you've said is also true :)
        The classical coin-toss and the quantum double slit interference
        experiments are explained using the involvement of the observer.
        The results are unpredictable, but doesn't mean that "quantum processes are truly random "
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 4 2012: if something is widely believed among physicists, the opposite of that hardly can be called a fact, or something we just need to "accept". prove it.
      • Jun 4 2012: Krisztian !
        Again, you are right, but not quite right :)
        Bell's theorem disproved the idea of locality. What Einstein called ''spooky action at a distance '' appeared to be a feature of nature or cosmos
        ( order).
        Random walk in quantum physics turned to be a new type of phenomenon called 'quantum walk'.
        If you are interested you may check out here
        http://thefutureofthings.com/news/7596/random-walk-in-quantum-physics.html
        • thumb
          Jun 4 2012: don't look at the consequences. the bell theorem has a very direct fundamental meaning. it says quantum theory can not be random only because it is a statistical description of reality. there can be no possible reality behind quantum theory that is fully nonrandom. that is the bell theorem.

          if we subscribe to that, we should conclude that our world is indeed random. it is its nature.

          however, arthur fine presented an argument that the measurements supporting bell's theorem might be flawed. if they indeed are, the bell theorem might be false, and the door is reopened to non-random models of the world.
      • Jun 4 2012: I don't understand why we should wait till somebody open/close/reopen any door to our world we inhabit and can observe and experience !
        As it was said: we test ourselves ! It means, that we know intuitively what we need to be explained rationally.
        "As above, so below" was said not by rational mind and not for rational mind, you can sense truth here and science could be very helpful backing it up .
        What can you say about this mind blowing video ?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfeoE1arF0I&feature=related
        It reminds me the zen koan : is it the wind moving or is it the flag? The monk answers, neither, its your mind that is moving.

        Cheers
        • thumb
          Jun 4 2012: people can't open doors. facts can. observations, measurements can. one can believe that bananas are purple. but a wise man accepts that it is yellow. so far, our experiments told us that the world is random. fine pointed out that we might interpret the data wrongly. for that reason, the video does not blow my mind, since i believe that quantum processes are nonrandom, but rather deterministic. i'm fine-ian, if you will. they fail to mention in the video that the detection rate of individual photons are like 5% max. so it is perfectly possible that we only detect cases with certain properties, selected by the arrangement of the experiment. it is possible that 50% behaved like particles, 50% behaved like waves, but the particles are non-detectable by such an arrangement. we don't know why or how, but we need near-100% detection rate to rule biased sampling out.

          no, we can not sense truth. we can, on a level, sense our own mental frames. but we surely can't feel how objects work in the universe. the universe continues to show us how weird it is. in the universe, time is dependent on speed, particles can be two places at the same time, mindless processes create structure and things like that. our universe is queer.

          http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe.html
      • Jun 8 2012: Hi, Krisztian !
        I don' reject your views :)
        but
        "...only logic and observations can tell true and false apart. so you can believe, if you want, that no reasoning can have any effect on me."

        SOCRATES : What Plato is about to say is false.

        PLATO : Socrates has spoken truly.

        It is self-referential conundrum that shows the limitation of logic and reasoning.
        There is no 'true' or 'false', but different descriptions of the same thing on different levels of understanding ,like Newton's gravity as a force and Einstein's curvature of spacetime.
        The question remains though : what are the force carriers ? So, we are dealing with effect, having no idea about the cause. To suggest that effect appeared from randomness would contradict logic, everyday experience and yes , intuition.

        "...no, we can not sense truth."

        I can :)
        And I am a perfectly ordinary human being, I can't know the truth, for you can't stop being hungry smelling the food. But such moments deeply colour the thinking and bring some clarity, the correspondences become obvious, and you start to see how everything, I do mean ,everything is connected. The very idea of randomness kisses you goodbye :).
        BTW, no contradiction with science here, for randomness in science is defined as 'not useful information', hence it is not absence of order but absence of recognition.
        How I can prove 'order' ?
        - Quantum entanglement.( maybe:) Cause and effect is one thing, they are bound together and separated by by spacetime, which is 'samsara' illusion of the mind. Squeezed between cause and effect in no real space and time in its own illusion mind has invented randomness , funny, isn't it ?

        And let's not call it 'debate', i don't state anything, we are just thinking on line and share our thoughts and I am grateful for your sharing.
        Thanks !
    • Jun 4 2012: Measurements are subjective ! I mean they depend on the frame of reference. A datum is born when wave function of 'knowing' is collapsed in favour of a particle, mind traps it in time hence makes it real. It is interpreted and becomes the 'fact', there is no such thing as an uninterpreted ' objective' fact.

      OK, Krisztian, as it was said many times: everyone is on his own path.
      Good luck with yours !
      Thanks for the conversation !
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 7 2012: there are two sides of this coin. in a debate, it is not enough to point out that the opponent don't want to accept your views. you are just as much reject his. only logic and observations can tell true and false apart. so you can believe, if you want, that no reasoning can have any effect on me. but you could at least try. so far, i saw no reasoning, only claims.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 7 2012: easy questions:

          1. have no idea.

          2. have no idea, but i'm almost sure the question does not make sense

          however. as a buddhist, i'm aware that there is a thing called samsara. for simplicity, we can call it "world". samsara is the thing we see if we look around. does randomness exist in samsara? i don't know. it might exist. it might not. there are people who dedicated their lives to study samsara. they claim that things look like there is randomness in it. it is not sure.

          however. you claimed that you know there is no randomness. so it is a good time for you to prove that. are you up to it?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 8 2012: in short, if i don't see it on my own, you can not show it to me. in even shorter, you can not show it. that's my point. you can only list a lot of sources that also don't contain any attempt to prove, they only assert. and a thousand assertions does not suddenly become an argument.

          and one more note: i don't say there is no cause and effect. i say you can not prove that there is no randomness in the world. see the difference?
      • Comment deleted

        • Jun 8 2012: Hi, Chris !
          It so resonates with my understanding (!!!), though I don't know a half of what you do !
          Thank you very much !!!
          P.S. I think, science is changing and changing fast. "queer" and "random" are just middle terms between 'objectivity ' and 'reverence' , 'wonder' .
          We are approaching the Age of Reason. I truly believe so :)