Talk:Quantum consciousness

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This Quantum woo related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Quantum biology[edit]

There is an "emerging field" called quantum biology, the existence of which suggests that there could be some connection between the quantum and biological worlds. WP also has article. Doesn't mean that there is any connection to mental states of course, but it would seem to mean that the idea shouldn't be rejected out of hand.Weirdstuff (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be dismissing it out of hand to say that (non-trivial) quantum effects probably aren't the source of consciousness. In the case of photosynthesis I'm struggling to see how the effect is being lumped in as "non-trivial" considering you're exploring photo-excited states, where obviously quantum effects will come into play because you're manipulating spins during those reactions. Spotting non-trivial quantum effects into the purely thermochemical world of neurology is something else entirely. Scarlet A.pngpatheticModerator 00:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Eh, @Armondikov, photosynthesis is a the photoelectric effect at work. I'm not sure how electronic spin plays a role here. Nerd (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No Stapp?[edit]

This may be one of the most unfairly biased pages on rationalwiki, straw man style.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 08:28, 22 May 2013‎

Quantum Computing, Decoherence and Woo[edit]

The idea that the mind functions as a quantum computer and thus tquantum mechanical phenomena are needed to explain consciousness is almost universally rejected by neuroscientists as well as physicists and theoretical computer scientists studying quantum computing on the grounds that neurons are simply too large and the brain too hot for quantum decoherence to make psychic phenomena explainable by anything more than classical physics. Quantum computing researcher Scott Aaronson has discussed this numerous times in his blog and in both academic and public talks (cf.

Discussions of exotic forms of physics as responsible for consciousness are rooted in unfalsifiable hypotheses.

Quantum biology is largely concerned with ab initio calculations for events on a much smaller scale than neural activity, so discussion of field is irrelevant. A quick browse of the literature settles this.

Arguments from formal epistemology invoking Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems à la Lucas-Penrose and the writings of Haim Gaifman are rooted in misunderstanding of the implications of results in mathematical logic for the theory of computation as well as the formal definition of undecidability. Comments from Hilary Putnam and more recently Avi Widgerson provide an accessible summary. 04:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Be honest in the opening argument for quantum consciousness.[edit]

I changed the opening argument because it is a strawman of the actual reasons given for quantum consciousness. If you want to disagree with it fine, if you want to call it pseudoscience also fine, but at least be honest about the motivations given for it. - — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 22:48, 3 November 2015

Reasons which are God of the gaps, which is precisely what it said.
1) Something must explain X - (Something must explain thunder/Something must explain tides)
2) The only thing that seems to explain it is Y - (The only thing I can think of is Zeus bowling/The only thing I can think of is God)
3) Therefor Y causes X - (Therefor thunder is caused by Zeus bowling/Therefore God makes the tides)
The only difference is changing a god to quantum and adding a few extra letters. Replace quantum with bunnies, god, or angel farts and the syllogism still makes as much sense. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Quantum Information & Consciousness[edit]

It is unfortunate that quantum woo is everything that comes to mind when the two words quantum and consciousness are mentioned in a single sentence. Below I post a reference to a monograph that might be useful to the readers of this article.

Danko Georgiev (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I've not read the book so I know nothing about it, but there is certainly a tendency in skeptical circles to equate quantum+anything to woo. This is understandable as, historically, quantum+anything has indeed turned out to be woo. But each claim really needs to be investigated on its own merits. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Now I think about it some more I seem to remember references to Quantum biology which WP sort of thinks may be a thing. Though the talk page is a bit skeptical. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC).
I think that the test proposed by Brian Cox to challenge woo meisters to first solve the Schrödinger equation (for a simple system) is a good way to separate non-sense from science. Currently, the article on quantum consciousness is fun to read on Rational Wiki (as opposed to quantum mindWikipedia), but I think that what is said just repeats the article on quantum woo. For example, Deepak ChopraWikipedia is definitely not a theorist, and some quantum physicists who have published multiple books on quantum mind are not even mentioned here. For example, Henry StappWikipedia has published 3 books with Springer. Danko Georgiev (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


Joining the chorus here. Weird as it may be, there actually are quantum vibrations in the space between neurons just like Penrose and Hammeroff claimed. The idea of quantum mechanic being related to consciousness is something people have made RIDICULOUS claims about but there's nothing fundamentally wrong about it as a theory. === CT Phipps — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

What does "quantum vibration" even mean? I must say I am ware of those who keep using the word "quantum" without knowing what it means. Nerd (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Basically, the stuff which Hammeroff and Penrose speculated would be the source of consciousness and the actual stuff generating thoughts in the brain unlike neurons. In this case, we can observe the effect like electricity in the brain and the debate is Hameroff says it's where consciousness is happening and draws quite a few more conclusions from. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Hmm, the space between neutrons is a liquid through which molecules known as neurotransmitters diffuse. Nerd (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well the big difference between everyone else in the world and quantum consciousness and Roger Penrose is the fact he actually knows...well, more than about anyone else alive about quantum physics. — Unsigned, by: / talk 15:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Roger Penrose may know quantum mechanics, but Stuart Hameroff is the one who wrote all the nonsense stuff on "Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR", "quantum vibrations in microtubules", "Platonic values embedded in fundamental space-time geometry", "consciousness diffusing in the universe at large in near-death-experiences", etc. Penrose's contribution is the calculation of gravitational self-energy in an old 1996 paper. Since then, Hameroff-Penrose papers contain no equations besides E = h/T, and quantum mumbo-jumbo speculations. Stuart Hameroff knows nothing about quantum mechanics and has collaborated a number of articles with Deepak Chopra. The Hameroff-Chopra collaboration is the finest of all examples of pseudoscience, and quantum mumbo-jumbo. Brian Cox's challenge for one to solve the Schrödinger equation for some very simple potential is a valid test to distinguish quantum charlatans from real scientists. Danko Georgiev (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Quantum Computing[edit]

Do we need to put the word "theoretical" in parentheses after saying that the quantum computer is a real device? Why can't we just say now, as 2019 ends, that it is a real device full stop? And reality is the opposite of woo. — Unsigned, by: Christofurio / talk / contribs

Hearing no objections, I've just made the suggested change. --Christofurio (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)