/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13905095

3MiB, 1716x1710, 1612121396333.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 29 Nov 23:39:41 2021 No.13905095 View Reply Original Report

Nobel Prize winner Roger Penrose thinks that consciousness is the result of the collapse of the wave function at the quantum level inside neurons in the brain.

Is he right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 29 Nov 2021 23:42:29 No.13905106 Report

Quoted By: >>13908405

>>13905095
50/50

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 01:23:21 No.13905391 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905095
Nah, this is an example of if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 01:48:41 No.13905439 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905095
That first Dawkins quote is correct though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 02:24:43 No.13905514 Report

Quoted By: >>13908526

>>13905095
everything above the quantum level is the result collapse of the wave function at the quantum level

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 02:41:53 No.13905553 Report

Quoted By:

No, that sounds like gibberish

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 02:46:09 No.13905559 Report

Quoted By: >>13907954

>>13905095
>Muh we don’t understand wave collapse
>Muh we don’t understand consciousness
>consciousness and wave collapse are related
Retarded tier connection of concepts

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 04:58:03 No.13905860 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905095
Yeah

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 15:04:39 No.13907155 Report

Quoted By: >>13908458

>>13905095
>Is he right?
Quantum effects are interestingly relevant to certain areas of biology. It is possible Penrose is right. My terrifying and depressing hunch though is that consciousness might be some kind of illusion and actually we are no more sentient than a rock.

His book ‘The Road to Reality’ is really terrific.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 15:10:08 No.13907174 Report

Quoted By: >>13907339

>>13905095
>To this end, we define and classify perceptual strategies and allow them to compete in evolutionary games in a variety of worlds with a variety of fitness functions. We find that veridical perceptions--strategies tuned to the true structure of the world--are routinely dominated by nonveridical strategies tuned to fitness. Veridical perceptions escape extinction only if fitness varies monotonically with truth. Thus, a perceptual strategy favored by selection is best thought of not as a window on truth but as akin to a windows interface of a PC. Just as the color and shape of an icon for a text file do not entail that the text file itself has a color or shape, so also our perceptions of space-time and objects do not entail (by the Invention of Space-Time Theorem) that objective reality has the structure of space-time and objects. An interface serves to guide useful actions, not to resemble truth. Indeed, an interface hides the truth; for someone editing a paper or photo, seeing transistors and firmware is an irrelevant hindrance. For the perceptions of H. sapiens, space-time is the desktop and physical objects are the icons. Our perceptions of space-time and objects have been shaped by natural selection to hide the truth and guide adaptive behaviors. Perception is an adaptive interface.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26384988/

Reminder that any scientist with an ego will claim they have all the answers, and viciously reject any hypothesis that isn't compatible with their life's work.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO omgrage.png, 67KiB, 542x371

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 15:19:44 No.13907199 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905095
my face when I literally came up with that idea by myself and realize thats how a nobel prize winner thinks about it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 15:24:47 No.13907214 Report

Quoted By: >>13907227 >>13908142

>>13905095
The hard problem of consciousness honestly seems really fucked for material reductionists. Panpsychism is starting to look more viable by the day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 15:28:54 No.13907227 Report

Quoted By: >>13907470

>>13907214
>t.metaphysical reductionist

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 15:37:43 No.13907250 Report

Quoted By: >>13907341

>>13905095
Penrose did his PhD in mathematics and then became a theoretical physicist. That's as far detached from reality as one can get.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 15:40:31 No.13907259 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905095
>collapse of the wave function
this was considered by it's "discoverers" to be a statistical formalism not a physical process.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 15:47:56 No.13907279 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905095
To be fair to Nye, "I am skeptical of this" isn't so bad

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1635016413970.jpg, 321KiB, 959x956

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 16:03:09 No.13907320 Report

Quoted By: >>13907351 >>13907842 >>13907851 >>13908142 >>13908509

>>13905095
No. this is just another attempt at justifying the retarded ideas of panpsychism. even if prominent scientists supported these ideas, that doesn't make them right. it goes against all principles of science. it's supernatural untestable, unrigorous and unexplainable voodoo magic shit. to be fair back then there was barely any biological explanation to human behavior.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 16:09:43 No.13907339 Report

Quoted By: >>13907473

>>13907174
Physics > Biology

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 16:10:44 No.13907341 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907250
He won the Nobel in physics a year ago, what you on about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 16:14:23 No.13907351 Report

Quoted By: >>13907821

>>13907320
Panpsychism is true though, that's the reason abiogenesis was possible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 16:14:49 No.13907352 Report

Quoted By: >>13907359

>>13905095
No. That's why physicists should never try and pretend they know about biology. Neurons are far too large for QM effects to have any relevance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 16:18:45 No.13907359 Report

Quoted By: >>13907368

>>13907352
Quantum effects go all the way up to molecules, so no, they are not large enough and quantum effects do take effect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 16:23:39 No.13907368 Report

Quoted By: >>13907378

>>13907359
> Quantum effects go all the way up to molecules
Correct but that doesn't make any difference in how a neuron processes information. Quantum effects dictate the molecular structure and properties of water, does that mean water is conscious?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 16:30:44 No.13907378 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907368
Molecules do most of the work in neurons so you are wrong.
>Quantum effects dictate the molecular structure and properties of water, does that mean water is conscious?
Non sequitur.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 17:05:12 No.13907464 Report

Quoted By:

>thing we don't understand?
>let's chalk it up to other thing we don't understand
Penrose is great, but unless there's something I'm missing I'm pretty meh on this conjecture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 17:06:43 No.13907470 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907227
Not even. But I am excited by the idea that there is something more to consciousness than just a by-product of neurons firing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 17:08:02 No.13907473 Report

Quoted By: >>13907520

>>13907339
What are you implying?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO interface theory.pdf, 676KiB, 1x1

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 17:17:59 No.13907496 Report

Quoted By: >>13907684 >>13907840

>>13905095
Dawkins is such a tremendous, close-minded faggot who is obviously desperate to prove he was smarter than his bullies. If we never entertained philosophy and blindly followed what we believed was our current best route in science, we would never reach ideas like interface theory.

It's summarised well in Hickok, G. The interface theory of perception: the future of the science of the mind?. Psychon Bull Rev 22, 1477–1479 (2015):

>If you believe in evolution, you must then believe that the world we perceive is not the world we actually inhabit. Not even close. The objects we see or hear or touch do not exist independently of the mind that constructs them. Our perception is nothing more than a useful fiction. This is the core of Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash’s Interface Theory of Perception and the claim that the present Special Issue examines in depth.

>The idea is far from new. Indeed, philosophers have entertained it for centuries. But Hoffman and colleagues give the theory some empirical teeth and force us to take it seriously, along with its mind-blowing implications.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 17:25:35 No.13907520 Report

Quoted By: >>13907539

>>13907473
That wave function collapse doesn't care about concepts like """"natural selection""""

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 17:27:55 No.13907524 Report

Quoted By: >>13908111 >>13908535

>>13905095
IIRC he was refuted by someone who said that biological processes occuring in the brain are far too slow to be Quantum Mechanical in nature

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 17:33:19 No.13907539 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907520
is OP argument for an ID?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 17:35:50 No.13907547 Report

Quoted By: >>13907578 >>13907684

My problem with philosophy is I'm not interested in reading the history of how many different men have been wrong.

If all philosophers say something different, then, none knows the truth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 17:44:02 No.13907578 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907547
>If all philosophers say something different, then, none knows the truth.
There also the other option that they're all speaking the truth

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 18:10:42 No.13907684 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907547
>My problem with philosophy is I'm not interested in reading the history of how many different men have been wrong.
You'd be surprised how many times people thought philosophers were retarded and then we come back to them. It's even happening today, see >>13907496 or even shit like simulation hypothesis and Plato.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 18:41:38 No.13907821 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907351
there is nothing to substantiate what you are saying.
people cling to the ideas of soul, free will and consciousness (define consciousness) being some mystical magic thing just to feel special and avoid nihilism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 18:44:52 No.13907840 Report

Quoted By: >>13907849 >>13907887

>>13907496
>interface theory
>if you just grant me this one thing I can show you how the chicken is really an egg

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 18:44:59 No.13907842 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907320
Based chadman

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 18:47:07 No.13907849 Report

Quoted By: >>13907858

>>13907840
Have you actually read the paper and understood the implications?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 18:47:13 No.13907851 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907320
To be fair, I think the philosophy of Descartes does align with science, at least about the part of being able to trust in what we can say is not true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 18:48:49 No.13907858 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907849
>interface theory
>evolutionary psych
>computer analogies abound
Early psychologists are also very guilt of having only hammers and seeing everything as a nail.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 19:00:54 No.13907887 Report

Quoted By: >>13907909 >>13908413

>>13907840
https://wiki.c2.com/?EddingtonsTwoTables

Hope this helps

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 19:07:20 No.13907909 Report

Quoted By: >>13907931

>>13907887
>dualism
Okay and?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 19:11:48 No.13907931 Report

Quoted By: >>13907953

>>13907909
>I need not tell you that modern physics has by delicate test and remorseless logic assured me that my second scientific table is the only one which is really there--wherever "there" may be. On the other hand I need not tell you that modern physics will never succeed in exorcising that first table--strange compound of external nature, mental imagery, and inherited prejudice--which lies visible to my eyes and tangible to my grasp.
That isn't dualism.

What Hoffman and Eddington described was the same thing: that our brain takes in data about the world and gives us perceptions based on that data, but the perceptions that we receive are based around utility to our life and not accurate representations of the world around us.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 19:17:33 No.13907953 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907931
>there exists a real rational table
>we see a perceived empirical table
This can be constructed either dualism or idealism. Hoffman is making a similar argument to Kant, and I find it unconvincing. Take the tree outside my window, to know the tree wholly I would need to know everything that the tree does, down to the paths of all the photons it emits and reflects during its life and that of the resultant universe. But do I need to wholly know the tree to know the tree? No, I don't think I do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 19:17:53 No.13907954 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905559
Do you understand them?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 19:44:09 No.13908064 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905095
>pic
>comparing actual scientists to pop culture props

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 19:56:41 No.13908111 Report

Quoted By: >>13908467

>>13907524

At least Robert Sapolsky has spent some time debunking the quantum mechanics being relevant in understanding how the brain works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1Ebshc8Ls4

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 20:04:02 No.13908142 Report

Quoted By: >>13908418

>>13905095
>>13907214
>hard problem of consciousness
off yourself
>>13907320
based

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 20:26:27 No.13908245 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905095
No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:06:38 No.13908380 Report

Quoted By: >>13908392 >>13908535

>>13905095
>Is he right?
Penrose AND Hammeroff's Orch OR is the most compelling theory of consciousness I've come across since I realized AI/neural nets are nothing remotely close to biological consciousness or even intelligence. My own theory is there are two biological systems, a kind of neural net tied to mechanics like movement and memory and another process runs on top of this which is consciousness that more than likely is happening at a quantum level or something else we don't have the physics to comprehend yet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:08:44 No.13908385 Report

Quoted By: >>13908392

You don’t have to have any weird quantum effects in the brain to explain consciousness. All you need to assume is that the universe is infinite. If that is so, there would need to be a mechanism to resolve paradoxes and select between equivalent states. Consciousness would be that mechanism.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:10:53 No.13908392 Report

Quoted By:

>>13908380
>consciousness that more than likely is happening at a quantum level
>>13908385
> assume is that the universe is infinite
RETARD ALERT RETARD ALERT

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:14:12 No.13908405 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905106
kek
good one anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:15:29 No.13908413 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907887
My problem with this interpretation is the argument that the perception of the real is distinct from reality as it is. The only difference is that I'm only able to perceive the bulk result and not the microscopic. Both descriptions of a 'table' have the same results - the table is equally solid, visible, and interectable. It's not that the table as we perceive it is an illusion, but that if we perceive the table by it's interactions with the macroscopic world this is the shape it takes: a solid table. In some sense, it being mostly empty space with some electrons is what it means to be solid at our size.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:16:35 No.13908418 Report

Quoted By: >>13908446

>>13908142
>off yourself
assmad boomer

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:24:03 No.13908446 Report

Quoted By: >>13908490 >>13908512

>>13908418
>muh qualia
>muh explanation
COPE

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:26:34 No.13908458 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907155
An illusion that fools whom, retard?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:30:33 No.13908467 Report

Quoted By:

>>13908111
he is not wrong but it's worded wrongly. all chemistry is a part of quantum mechanics (see bohr model, QED, etc). quantum mechanics includes all physics that deal with quantized things, not only the weird stuff. every action potential is explained solely through quantum mechanics.
also he is not precise enough on point 2. a "decision" is a highly ordered firing of action potentials, chaos is chaos. a "decision" is 1111111111111111, chaos is 5k9e71s93c2l81. the brain has methods to deal with noise anyway and when that goes wrong you get countless neuro disorders

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:36:17 No.13908490 Report

Quoted By: >>13908501

>>13908446
muh material reductionist "JUST 5000 MORE YEARS AND WE'LL CRACK IT"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:40:22 No.13908501 Report

Quoted By: >>13908507

>>13908490
there's nothing to "crack" about it retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:42:59 No.13908507 Report

Quoted By: >>13908512

>>13908501
i wasn't aware materialism can explain consciousness already, incredible

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:43:15 No.13908509 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907320
Based

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:44:00 No.13908512 Report

Quoted By: >>13908536

>>13908507
>>13908446
>muh explanation
there is nothing to explain if the question can't be stated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:47:38 No.13908526 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905514
about to say this.
OP must have shortened what Penrose said and thrown out a crucial part.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:49:45 No.13908535 Report

Quoted By:

>>13907524
>IIRC he was refuted by someone who said that biological processes occuring in the brain are far too slow to be Quantum Mechanical in nature
Them being Quantum Mechanical would also not change shit - QM is perfectly computable.
Penrose also proposes a very extreme version of QM that is idiosynchratic to him and makes predictions that are testable and are highly likely to be wrong.
>>13908380
>that more than likely is happening at a quantum level or something else we don't have the physics to comprehend yet.
We do have all the physics needed to (in principle) understand every single biological process - its just good old quantum electrodynamics. Its not practical, but there isn't anything in chemistry or biology that requires understanding any interaction besides the electromagnetic interaction and any matter to any level beyond electrons and nuclei(which you can model as just point particles with their respective masses and charges - nothing pertaining to their composition or decay or anything else is needed). All the fundamental physics knowledge needed for all of bio has been completed and exhausted by Freeman Dyson way back in the day. Sorry, but thats it, the world doesn't conspire to be exciting in ways you would want it to be - it only conspires to be interesting to high level mathematicians.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:50:07 No.13908536 Report

Quoted By: >>13908543

>>13908512
>there is nothing to explain if the question can't be stated.
how does material reductionism account for consciousness
and if you think we gained sentience as a result of evolution i cant help

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:52:36 No.13908543 Report

Quoted By:

>>13908536
>consciousness
>sentience
define those things in terms that allow for their existence to be proven or disproven.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Nov 2021 21:56:24 No.13908561 Report

Quoted By:

>>13905095

Yes, but not for the reason he thinks.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches