What is reality?

[Obvious Leo]

The majority of our thinking is an unconscious process because thought is linear.T

No it isn't. Our brain circuitry is linear but the parallel connectivity and the variable action potentials of the synaptic network essentially makes thought non-linear. This is why human minds are absolutely, entirely and utterly unpredictable. If thought was linear it would be possible in principle to predict what a subject would think in any defined situation. Since there are more logic gates in a human mind than there are ATOMS in the universe then we can safely assume that this must always remain impossible, even in principle. I also happen to know anecdotally that this is true because I have a wife.

This explains why decisions/actions occur a half second before we are consciously aware of them.

I think 200 milliseconds is the average but your point is the point. Consciousness is a PROCESS and processes take time to reach our conscious awareness.

Have you any idea what the "metaphysical first principles" might look like?

I reckon I have, Seagull. In my philosophy I claim that these first principles should be as simple as possible and as self-evident as possible. In fact my entire philosophy proceeds from only two such metaphysical first principles.

1. The universe is everything that exists.

2. All effects must be preceded by a cause.

Obviously because these are first principles they are not further logically reducible so my philosophy proceeds from them as axiomatic positions. In other words I assume them as true statements and then interpret the evidence of science in the light of them. As you can see this puts me at odds with modern physics which makes the opposite assumption in both of the above cases. Unsurprisingly my universe makes sense whereas theirs doesn't.

I share this view with you yet wonder why or how you do not see this as the stance of those "logical positivists" you disagree to. This was their original view as well.

Nothing like it Scott. Mention the word metaphysics to the logical positivists and they'll all move over to the other side of the room as if you farted. They claim that the universe can only be understood in the language of mathematics which means they claim that the model and the reality are synonymous constructs. Not only do their models make no fucking sense but they don't even need to be embarrassed about it because they can simply redefine what making sense means. It's a neat trick but it's not science.

And our goal should be to see if these can meet these approaches in the middle.

Agreed. This is why I call myself a Natural Philosopher. I reckon science without philosophy is like a bath without soap. You'll get soaking wet for no good reason because you'll still come our covered in shit.

In other words, space may not be understood by you as 'real'.

The burden of proof does not lie with me, Scott. In the entire history of the philosophy of mathematics no thinker has ever claimed otherwise so the burden of proof lies with those who would. Spaces are mathematical objects and not physical ones. Newton was plain fucking WRONG.

[Ginkgo]

double post

[Ginkgo]

[quote="Obvious Leo"]

No it isn't. Our brain circuitry is linear but the parallel connectivity and the variable action potentials of the synaptic network essentially makes thought non-linear. This is why human minds are absolutely, entirely and utterly unpredictable. If thought was linear it would be possible in principle to predict what a subject would think in any defined situation. Since there are more logic gates in a human mind than there are ATOMS in the universe then we can safely assume that this must always remain impossible, even in principle. I also happen to know anecdotally that this is true because I have a wife.


Sorry, meant to say our brain circuitry is parallel while our consciousness is linear.

[Obvious Leo]

Sorry, meant to say our brain circuitry is parallel while our consciousness is linear.

The distinction is not a trivial one, Gingko, and I wasn't just trying to be gratuitously pedantic. Nowadays it is commonplace to model the embodied mind as a computer and so it very much is. However the non-linearity of embodied cognition defines this computer as an entirely different thing from the Newtonian contraption we have on our desktops. Linear computers can only process information according to a defined programme but non-linear computers have no programme. They programme themselves. Our minds are quite literally entities of our own creation.

[Ginkgo]

Sorry, meant to say our brain circuitry is parallel while our consciousness is linear.

The distinction is not a trivial one, Gingko, and I wasn't just trying to be gratuitously pedantic. Nowadays it is commonplace to model the embodied mind as a computer and so it very much is. However the non-linearity of embodied cognition defines this computer as an entirely different thing from the Newtonian contraption we have on our desktops. Linear computers can only process information according to a defined programme but non-linear computers have no programme. They programme themselves. Our minds are quite literally entities of our own creation.

That's true, while most computers are programmed 'top down', I am assuming you are referring to a 'bottom up' approach to programming whereby the algorithms can modify themselves so the computer in a sense can 'learn'.

On the other hand, you might be referring to the non-computational aspect of the human mind where by the brain has both a algorithmic function and a quantum function. Could you please clarify this for me Leo.

[Obvious Leo]

I'm referring only to the algorithmic function and the nature of the algorithms being employed. Although I'm well schooled in the philosophy of computation the actual geek-speak of information science is not my long suit. However in the embodied cognition model the only algorithms which can sensibly be applied are non-linear ones which as you say are learning algorithms. These are also known as evolutionary algorithms and thus the mind is defined as an evolving entity, which is hardly a bleeding edge proposition.

In my view the so-called "quantum function" of cognition is as spurious a notion as the quantum mechanical theory which gave birth to it. Quantum mechanics is neither mechanical nor does it deal with quantum entities.

[Ginkgo]

In my view the so-called "quantum function" of cognition is as spurious a notion as the quantum mechanical theory which gave birth to it. Quantum mechanics is neither mechanical nor does it deal with quantum entities.

The empirical evidence won't change you mind on that one?

[Obvious Leo]

The empirical evidence won't change you mind on that one?

What empirical evidence are you referring to? QM is merely a mathematical tool for codifying the information gleaned from the interrogation of a sub-atomic system. It has astonishing predictive authority but no explanatory authority whatsoever.

[Ginkgo]

The empirical evidence won't change you mind on that one?

What empirical evidence are you referring to? QM is merely a mathematical tool for codifying the information gleaned from the interrogation of a sub-atomic system. It has astonishing predictive authority but no explanatory authority whatsoever.

Quantum Vibrations Evidence For Theory Of Consciousness?
By News Staff | February 2nd 2014 10:31 AM | 6 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
User pic. News Staff

A derided 1990s hypothesis of consciousness may have gotten new life, according to a review in Physics of Life Reviews, which claims that consciousness derives from deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons.

Nothing controversial about that, right? Indeed there isn't, but the problem with these is always the same; if Leonardo da Vinci wrote something hundreds of years ago that might be construed to be about the Internet, he didn't invent the Internet, and finding consciousness physically someday does not mean a particular claim is validated, but the authors of a new review, Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose, do just that, stating that quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates this hypothesis, called "orchestrated objective reduction", by mathematician Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford, and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, MD, of Anesthesiology, Psychology and Center for Consciousness Studies at The University of Arizona, Tucson.

To be valid, the mechanisms have to be correct also, that is what a theory is; saying quantum mechanics will lead to understanding consciousness is not science, but the authors fit studies to match their beliefs, and say EEG rhythms (brain waves) derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions.

Penrose and Hameroff claimed that quantum vibrational computations in microtubules were "orchestrated" ("Orch") by synaptic inputs and memory stored in microtubules, and terminated by Penrose "objective reduction" ('OR'), hence "Orch OR." Microtubules are major components of the cell structural skeleton.

Their speculation was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain is considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for delicate quantum processes. Newer papers have suggested warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules. The recent claim of discovering warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, of the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, say the review authors. They also list the work of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, who suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.

"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."

"The evidence now clearly supports Orch OR," they claim. "Our new paper updates the evidence, clarifies Orch OR quantum bits, or "qubits," as helical pathways in microtubule lattices, rebuts critics, and reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 – of these, six are confirmed and none refuted."

Well, there you go. They managed to do a review and couldn't find a single paper that contradicted a speculative claim derided by scientists. That's the mark of quality.

They also introduced a new angle: Microtubule quantum vibrations (e.g. in megahertz) appear to interfere and produce much slower EEG "beat frequencies" - this can't be disputed by science because despite a century of clinical use, the underlying origins of EEG rhythms are a mystery, so their claim is as good as any. Clinical trials of brief brain stimulation aimed at microtubule resonances with megahertz mechanical vibrations using transcranial ultrasound claimed improvements in mood.

Lead author Stuart Hameroff goes for broke, "Orch OR is the most rigorous, comprehensive and successfully-tested theory of consciousness ever put forth. From a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions."

"Microtubules and the Big Consciousness Debate" was presented at the Brainstorm Sessions at the Brakke Grond in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, January 16-18th, 2014, where they also coupled microtubule vibrations from active neurons to play Indian musical instruments. "Consciousness depends on anharmonic vibrations of microtubules inside neurons, similar to certain kinds of Indian music, but unlike Western music which is harmonic," Hameroff explained.


People in psychology love Eastern mysticism and culture. Science has no explanation for that.