Philosophy Now Forum

could entangled say carbon molecules do the work of carrying consciousness through dna.

No.

A carbon molecule is not a DNA molecule, only a small part and not enough to carry information.

entanglment is not nonlocality it just proves nonlocalness exists.so there for might have a big part to play in consciouness.

No the synapses are large to really undergo quantum influence, although I suppose the tubuoles between them could if of course they could remain coherent for more than a microsecond.

Incidentally Buckminster Fulerine a Carbon molecule shaped like a football, is the largest molecule in which quantum strangeness has been observed, that was of course though at extremely low temperatures.

nonlocality is tempature less so from its side of things .its just a matter of energy to nonenergy surfaces.

jackles wrote:nonlocality is tempature less so from its side of things .its just a matter of energy to nonenergy surfaces.

Erm I am not sure what you are saying there?

It doesn't matter if it's non locally temperatureless, if the signal decoheres because of the temperature, it wont actually transfer any information and it still has to move through space, it's not actually spooky action at a distance, information still passes between the two articles at a non local and less than c rate, or in this case not because their entanglement is destroyed by background noise. Quantum states are notoriously fragile and need optimal conditions, usually at temperatures close to -273°c to transfer information (the human brain is an anathema to coherent states, that's why there are no quantum computers as yet also.

it must be a surface along the lines you have stated

monads could

-Imp

Carbon molecules are mere materials. Could two carry a thing called consciousness? Could ten? Could a billion? No. Adding another inert unit changes nothing, and does not suddenly generate consciousness.

Could they carry consciousness if they were stacked? If they were clumped? If they were put in a line? No. A pile, a line, a group, or a clump are all just descriptors of the same thing: inert matter in different places.

Two miracles need explaining here: 1) How do inert molecules, under the hand of only random forces, end up composing anything; and 2) How can any amount of inert materials, arranged in any pattern, somehow produce that highly spooky, immaterial quality we refer to by the word "consciousness"?

At present, there are no good explanations.

Immanuel Can wrote:Carbon molecules are mere materials. Could two carry a thing called consciousness? Could ten? Could a billion? No. Adding another inert unit changes nothing, and does not suddenly generate consciousness.

Could they carry consciousness if they were stacked? If they were clumped? If they were put in a line? No. A pile, a line, a group, or a clump are all just descriptors of the same thing: inert matter in different places.

Two miracles need explaining here: 1) How do inert molecules, under the hand of only random forces, end up composing anything; and 2) How can any amount of inert materials, arranged in any pattern, somehow produce that highly spooky, immaterial quality we refer to by the word "consciousness"?

At present, there are no good explanations.

No doubt the case at the moment. Although it is interesting. I don't think there is a problem saying that such systems can contain information. We might also get away with saying that such systems have knowledge. That is to say, a particular kind of knowledge. Even if such systems contain knowledge and information we cannot really say that such a system is conscious in the way we generally understand consciousness.

There are no good answers to why life exists either, does that throw any doubt on the fact that carbon bundled together seems to be alive? It's a fact that life is alive, just because we haven't solved the hard problem means we should look for an answer to that not widely speculate on quantum mechanical properties which cannot even exist in the synapses.

how can random forces compose everything in existence? Well I could speculate and arm wave about how. Or I could just say something like since at the classical limit quantum effects no longer have an effect and classical deterministic non random forces dominate (well aside from entropy which is non reversible and not really classical as such). So in short the answer is random forces don't dominate except at the nano scale and our DNA has evolved to make use of QM at the molecular level and non QM properties at the macro level such as in the brain.

Immanuel Can wrote:Carbon molecules are mere materials. Could two carry a thing called consciousness? Could ten? Could a billion? No. Adding another inert unit changes nothing, and does not suddenly generate consciousness.

Could they carry consciousness if they were stacked? If they were clumped? If they were put in a line? No. A pile, a line, a group, or a clump are all just descriptors of the same thing: inert matter in different places.

Two miracles need explaining here: 1) How do inert molecules, under the hand of only random forces, end up composing anything; and 2) How can any amount of inert materials, arranged in any pattern, somehow produce that highly spooky, immaterial quality we refer to by the word "consciousness"?

At present, there are no good explanations.

highly spooky was what you said is this a freudian slip imanuel.as in consiouse involving spook action at a distance.or NON LOCALNESS.

jackles wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Carbon molecules are mere materials. Could two carry a thing called consciousness? Could ten? Could a billion? No. Adding another inert unit changes nothing, and does not suddenly generate consciousness.

Could they carry consciousness if they were stacked? If they were clumped? If they were put in a line? No. A pile, a line, a group, or a clump are all just descriptors of the same thing: inert matter in different places.

Two miracles need explaining here: 1) How do inert molecules, under the hand of only random forces, end up composing anything; and 2) How can any amount of inert materials, arranged in any pattern, somehow produce that highly spooky, immaterial quality we refer to by the word "consciousness"?

At present, there are no good explanations.

highly spooky was this a freudian slip imanuel.as in consiouse involving spook action at a distance.or NON LOCALNESS.

It's not spooky at all if you ask me, field theory explains it entirely and rectifies it with both general and special relativity, where no laws are broken, end of the day Einstein left the Solvey confrence having been ousted by the young pretenders and quantum mechanics was established at last. A lot of people don't like the implications of Copenhagen the most popular interpretation but no one cares because if you can't distinguish your interpretation then it just becomes to all intents and purposes Copenhagen anyway.

Blaggard wrote:There are no good answers to why life exists either, does that throw any doubt on the fact that carbon bundled together seems to be alive? It's a fact that life is alive, just because we haven't solved the hard problem means we should look for an answer to that not widely speculate on quantum mechanical properties which cannot even exist in the synapses.

how can random forces compose everything in existence? Well I could speculate and arm wave about how. Or I could just say something like since at the classical limit quantum effects no longer have an effect and classical deterministic non random forces dominate (well aside from entropy which is non reversible and not really classical as such). So in short the answer is random forces don't dominate except at the nano scale and our DNA has evolved to make use of QM at the molecular level and non QM properties at the macro level such as in the brain.

Hi Blaggard,

Your reference to,"the hard problem". Do you mean the hard problem of consciousness?