Quantum Physicists and their take on Consciousness
You might not like the link at the end in the quote block but it doesn't negate the thoughts and opinions of these Nobel scientists who looked into the depths of our realities and existence.
As Aristotle said
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Cheers. 
Not to argue...Wigner may be right. He may be wrong. All I know is how little I do know. An important lesson by way of example:
Quantum Conundrum: "Some Aspects of the Universe are Beyond the Reach of Mathematics"
"Alan Turing is famous for his role in cracking the Enigma code," said Dr Toby Cubitt from UCL Computer Science. "But among mathematicians and computer scientists, he is even more famous for proving that certain mathematical questions are `undecidable' - they are neither true nor false, but are beyond the reach of mathematics. What we've shown is that the spectral gap is one of these undecidable problems. This means a general method to determine whether matter described by quantum mechanics has a spectral gap, or not, cannot exist. Which limits the extent to which we can predict the behavior of quantum materials, and potentially even fundamental particle physics."
A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable, according to scientists at UCL, Universidad Complutense de Madrid - ICMAT and Technical University of Munich.
It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.
A small spectral gap - the energy needed to transfer an electron from a low-energy state to an excited state - is the central property of semiconductors. In a similar way, the spectral gap plays an important role for many other materials. When this energy becomes very small, i.e. the spectral gap closes, it becomes possible for the material to transition to a completely different state. An example of this is when a material becomes superconducting.
Mathematically extrapolating from a microscopic description of a material to the bulk solid is considered one of the key tools in the search for materials exhibiting superconductivity at ambient temperatures or other desirable properties. A study, published today in Nature, however, shows crucial limits to this approach. Using sophisticated mathematics, the authors proved that, even with a complete microscopic description of a quantum material, determining whether it has a spectral gap is, in fact, an undecidable question.
Astronomers used the Hubble image at the top of the page to chart the invisible matter in the massive galaxy cluster Abell 1689, located 2.2 billion light-years away. The cluster's gravity, the majority of which comes from dark matter, acts like a cosmic magnifying glass, bending and amplifying the light from distant galaxies.
-- The Daily Galaxy via University College London
SOURCE: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/quantum-conundrum-some-aspects-of-the-universe-are-beyond-the-reach-of-mathematics.html
but not the active electron that triggers neurons that make something conscious and alive.
How dolphins see us and use a three dimensional reality that we don't have.
The grainy picture showing a person’s head, arms and legs as visualised in a dolphin’s mind is yet another indication of how these fascinating sea mammals are reaching evolutionary heights that even humans have yet to achieve.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/625433/Dolphins-echolocation-humans-research
How many more dimensions are there that we can't perceive?
Or, further, why is there not more chaos? Is there some organizing principle at the root of the universe? 
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
It only won a Nobel Prize.
So there's that.
It is those pitching the woo-woo of quantum consciousness who are the lightweights. Let's start with the fact that they have no theory whatsoever, only suppositions. Quantum field theory is the most accurate theory in science. Its embodiment, the standard model says zip about consciousness. There is no theory of consciousness except the hypothesis that consciousness is what a brain does. At least that has neurological support.
Until there is something more concrete I will stand by my opinion that quantum consciousness is flapdoodle. People love to turn complex, nearly incomprehensible things like quantum into magic. No scientist should let them get away with that.
My best to you, Iching.
There is no evidence for, let alone a theory of, quantum consciousness.
None whatsoever.
And the Kamiokande experiment was huge. There were hundreds of physicists who worked on it. Stenger was one of the theorists. And the Nobel Prize is limited to three awardees. But of course Stenger got some credit, just not the Nobel. After all, professors have to publish or perish.
Are there even any peer reviewed papers in any reputable science journal on quantum consciousness? I think there probably are. But I don't think there are many. And I don't think many of the big journals are publishing such stuff.
In other words, the consensus seems to be that there is no there there in quantum consciousness. It is not even wrong, to quote Wolfgang Pauli.
As always,
My regards.
Sorry that I cannot go with you there, but I cannot even if I wanted to.
There is no soul theory or soul evidence. Context free quotes by Nobel Prize physicists is not likely to change that. The argument is a non-starter.
Stay well, my friend.
BTW, I love Van Morrison. Thanks.
So I actually studied quantum. Yes, it is only a BS. But even in the 70's when I graduated we knew that the Copenhagen interpretation was not correct and that an observer was not necessary because the universe decoheres with itself. Nothing has changed those facts since then. In fact, the theory of mind has become even more mechanistic and natural and quantum field theory even more specific in its expression. Thestandard model.
No consciousness there at all.
But with all science, I would change my mind in a second if there was evidence proportional to what is being claimed, that what the current theory says is wrong. However, that is a very tall order. One does not get to rewrite the physics textbooks unless one can explain everything in the previous theory, plus more, plus make predictions. That is just science, my good friend.
And the quantum consciousness folks have not risen to that level. What they claim is something Wolfgang Pauli might term "not even wrong."
My regards.
Notably, he said it to Richard Feynman! (As Feynman reports in "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman".)
Oh, and Pauli was a theorist, not an experimentalist. So yes, equipment would likely break when he walked into a lab. 
...and it's a good one! But I've always loved the anecdotes about the Pauli effect -- you should look them up -- there's a famous event where he was not, strictly speaking, in the lab in question, but was on a train that had stopped in the town right at the moment when the lab equipment broke. Wait maybe I can find it...
https://books.google.com/books?id=gtCUDxZZFuIC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=pauli+train+station+equipment&source=bl&ots=CkQtwMoQU7&sig=cVzMShkefj_ZHw251BYzw1n7rV0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRo4bi1tzJAhUH2WMKHb53BMwQ6AEIMTAE#v=onepage&q=pauli%20train%20station%20equipment&f=false
I can't cut and paste but it's a description of the most (in)famous case of the Pauli effect.
"Use the word quantum in a sentence, despite not knowing what it means"
As Wolfgang Pauli would say "that is so ridiculous, it is not even worth being called wrong".
so consciousness is certainly a brain process.
This can lead to discussions on what consciousness returns after your brain shuts off, such as when you wake up from a sleep or coma; or what consciousness returns after being teleported as in Star Trek, and if that question has any real meaning.
Beam me up
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
It is a bit oblique to the discussion here, but covers many of the same subject matter.
It is an Intelligence^2 debate on the proposition "Death is not final".
The debate is very good and respectful.
It is about an hour and 40 minutes long, but well worth the viewing no matter which side you are on. All four participants are polite and respectful.
Philosopher Ray Moody and neurological surgeon Eben Alexander argue for the proposition.
Physicist Sean Carroll and clinical neurologist Steve Novella argue against it.
Hope everybody enjoys it. I just now watched it again.
And as always, my best to you all.
I know of John Hagelin. He ran for President three times on the Natural Law party. He's smart, very much so. But his arguments are not as much based on his physics education as much as his adherence to Transcendental Meditation, which is kind of what the Natural Law Party is about. So although by all accounts he is a nice guy, I cannot go where he goes with his physics. Anybody who subverts science for their religious beliefs, I would have some problems with.
I know of a few scientists who are religious, even devoutly so. But none of them change their science to accommodate their beliefs. For instance, biologist Kenneth Miller is a devout catholic, but defends science as strongly as anybody does. He even debated creationist Duane Gish!
Thank you for the links. I'll give them a view when my download limit resets.
These trialogues are from a series of lively, far-reaching discussions between Rupert and his close friends Ralph Abraham and Terence McKenna, that took place between 1989 and 1998, in America and England.
These three-way conversations began in private after their first meeting in 1982. Encouraged by their similar fascinations and complimentary views, and inspired by the synergy of their ideas and styles and the input of differing areas of expertise, the three friends continued to meet and explore new areas of thought. Throughout their public trialogues, which began in 1989, they maintained the spontaneous, playful and intrepid spirit of their private talks, and were thrilled that these explorations inspired further discussions amongst their audiences. Their trialogues and friendship have been a source of great inspiration and stimulation for their own lives and work.
In their first set of public trialogues, held as a workshop at Esalen in 1989, they explored aspects of the world soul from the perspectives of chaos, creativity and imagination, and discussed many topics including: light and vision; the psilocybin mushroom; the unconscious; entities; the resacralization of the world; the reform of the educational system and the Apocalypse.
Their second series of trialogues examined evolution in all its forms, through new topics that included: grassroots science; psychedelics, computers and mathematics; psychic animals; the World Wide Web; celestial intelligences; the nature of time and the evolving mind.
Ralph Abraham, PhD, is a Professor of Mathematics, author, and pioneer in the fields of Chaos theory, computer graphics, visual mathematics and dynamical systems.
Terence McKenna was an ethnopharmacologist, shamanologist, and author, known for his theories on plant hallucinogens and the novelty wave, and the bardic skill with which he conveyed his ideas. Sadly Terence died aged 53 on April 3, 2000.
I already posted it to the Interfaith group, so it's known to DU's septics. Lots of great conversations and debates on consciousness and pretty much everything else, so it's also a great listen (hours and hours and hours' worth!)
...the least. Which...is sad. It's sad in a way that there aren't enough words to express.
Ahh, well. Excellent post. 
...how certain they are that things that are not certain are, well, certain.
I'll leave it to you to estimate how well you were perceived.
Out of the 7 quotes above, only two offer some remote support for the idea of a soul.
Max Planck says he's a theist, and Schrödinger speculates on why consciousness appeared.
The minority view of Max Planck wrapped in other quotes as evidence of the soul?
I think not.
...and bookmarked. 
TYY 
when he was knighted by Denmark.
