Talk:Quantum mind/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Talk Page Archive

I created a new subpage and it is now Archive 1 with a link at above right. Archive 2, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Quantum_mind/archive2" and the link added to the template on this page's code. Some of the talk pages prior to November 27, 2006 to the beginning (3 April 2004) may also have used the refactoring method of talk page management. Archive 1 therefore may not be a complete record of all discussions (though the very first post is in Archive 1). To view other archived talk pages follow these steps: 1. Click on the "History" tab at the top of this page. 2. Click on any date that you wish. That's all you have to do. You will be taken to Wiki's archived talk page for that date. To find the very first talk pages, click on the "Earliest" link at the bottom of the "History" page and scroll down to the links at the bottom of the page. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page or click on "Archives" in the upper right archives box. Permission is granted to other Wiki editors to copy/paste or adapt this talk page notice for other archives. 5Q5 18:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the infobox! I added a modified version in Talk:Dvorak Simplified Keyboard. --ADTC 13:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

• Article is small enough: can be organised like a small paper.
• Section/Sub-section increases readability and constraints the floating argumentation.
• Smaller paragraphs allow correction and improvement.

Dilane 16:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Large revert

I have reverted the recent edits by Peterdjones. I appreciate his zeal, but given the large changes to the article, they require consensus for addition. I also believe that the material I removed at least partially violates WP:NPOV and also mis-represents quantum physics. Statements stating that quantum entanglement justify telepathy or clairvoyance are unacceptable, because quantum does no such thing. This is discussed nicely elsewhere in Wikipedia. Michaelbusch 19:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I have mis-represented QM. My material in "ESP" section concluded with the remark:

"How strong ESP is as a motivation to adopt quantum mind theories of course depends on how much belief one has in it. Many physicists point out that while there are strange aspects of quantum behaviour, they are confined to the world of the very small."

I don't see how I can have been more critical of the argument from ESP without violating NPOV. Pointing out that minority opinion is minority opinion is exactly the tactic recommended for dealing with pseudoscience in the guidelines.

I also expanded the scepticism/obstacles section. You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to promote Quantum Mind theories. You are mistaken.

1Z

Quantum mechanics has features which are

- suggestive of at least some of the catalogue of traditional extra-sensory abilites.

-

- * Quantum entanglement or "spooky action at a distance" suggests telepathy.

- * Quantum indeterminacy suggest that a quantum entity can be found anywhere and therefore hints ::at telekinesis.

This text (just before that which you cited) is what bothered me most: it is nonsense. Entanglement in no way 'suggests' telepathy and indeterminacy similarly has no relation to telekinesis. I have difficulty finding any chain of thought that connects the two, let alone a suggestion of one in the other. RE. being critical of ESP: I personally am of the opinion that ESP is bollocks and should be treated harshly. This is due to failure of all reliable tests. Following NPOV, we should not say things like 'how much belief one has in it', which sets up a false dichotomy. 'Many physicists' is a mis-statement. What should be said is 'the scientific community'. Also, quantum is not 'confined to the world of the very small'. This is a gross-oversimplification that mis-represents quantum mechanics. A more correct statement is 'the decoherence time of, for example, a neurotransmitter molecule, is so short that indeterminacy is not meaningful in biochemistry'. A full discussion of quantum biochemistry is fall beyond even Wikipedia.

I also do not follow the train of your version: discussions of the conscious mind suddenly jump to quantum mechanics and ESP. The jump to quantum is perhaps understandable, but the second comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere connected to the proposition.

I did not assume that you were advocating this hypothesis. I merely could not accept the wording.

It occurs to me that the quantum mysticism article is a superset of this article. Perhaps a merge is in order. Michaelbusch 07:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

'Quantum mind' is the name by which I've known the subject for some while, possibly through Roger Penrose's work but possibly earlier. Although there is some degree of overlap with mysticism, and no doubt a few charlatans in the vicinity, there are people doing proper science in this area (i.e. it satisfies Popper's criterion). Are fMRI and EEG experiments with highly skilled meditators part of science, Buddhism or mysticism? Clearly they may impinge on all three. There is nevertheless a study of 'quantum mind' the main focus of which is based in science. Davy p 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Further removals

Upon reading the article more carefully, I realized that the majority of it was worded such that if this were a new article it would be deemed nonsense. I have purged that which seemed irrelevant or beyond salvage. There is not too much left. I expect that some editors will object to this, but please let it be discussed here so that the article will not consist of bollocks or strangely-worded advocacy for the proposition. Michaelbusch 19:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a potentially severe 'bollocks problem' here, and preservation of NPOV etc. is not easy. Nevertheless there are a fair few well-qualified scientists working in this area, e.g. Penrose, Hammerof, Stapp... While it may turn out that their hypotheses are faulty, what they have said is factual. I'm not so good at history, but it seems that there is also something of a tradition of interest in this area, dating from the time when quantum mechanics first developed, which was largely eclipsed by WWII and has only surfaced again in the last decade or two. It's certainly not an easy topic, but it's one which deserves attention. Davy p 01:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a fair removal

The last Peterdjones is much more informative than the current article, and it is simply stipid to remve such a great deal of good information! I agree that it should be more NPOV and wikified! But not counting the ESP stuff, it was a good collection of arguments and resources. Now the page is almost blank. I hope somebody will save Peterdjones efforts and wikify them, I do not feel qualified. 82.181.48.62 03:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I was intending to continue work on the page. No doubt my efforts are imperfect but the previous page was in a confused state, and the current one is hardly "comprehensive and detailed".

1Z 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)1Z

The style of the article was terrible, the reasoning dubious, citations non-existent. There was a great deal of text but very little content (see above). Michaelbusch 07:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I had citations for almost everything. (Actually, I had citations for eveything I added. The uncited parts were inherited from the previous article).

1Z 11:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)1Z

You did not have citations for the section on quantum suggesting ESP.

I constrain a citation to be a reference that demonstrates a suggestion of ESP in quantum.

Please do not remove material from the talk page. Michaelbusch 17:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I did include a refernce to Victor Stenger's paper debunking the idea

The section was "motivations". People can be motivated by ideas that are false. It is nonetheless a fact that they are so motivated.

1Z 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)1Z

But Wikipedia should not present false ideas in anything other than a critical manner. This is why your text was not acceptable. See my user page, under 'Objection 0'. Michaelbusch 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I did criticise the ideas, and cited criticism. And decisions about what is "acceptable"

are in need of discussion as much as anything else.1Z 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)1Z

Hello, I fully agree that the old article was full of various errors, but I think that the Q-mind article, must be organized in a more rational fashion - [1] there should be general clarification between "Q-mind" and "Q-mysticism" [for example see this paper. Then [2] the Q-mind should be a kind of gate towards particular models of Q-mind - such as Stapp's model, Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR, etc. In the current version of skepticism section is presented a typical logical fallacy - the quantum effects cannot last long enough - "what means "long"?" As discussed in several published papers such as Informatica 2006; 30: 221-232 (free text) there is big difference between the suggested by Hameroff in the Orch OR model 25 ms of q-coherence, sompared to the entangled protein network for 15 ps within the framework of QBD originated by Umezawa, Vitiello, Jibu and Yasue, and developped in new direction in Georgiev and Glazebrook. Old arguments used against Orch OR, are not generally valid, so one must really do the necessary calculations to disprove the Q-mind in the proposed level of entangled protein dynamics for 15 ps (see this old paper: Does picosecond protein dynamics have survival value? Trends in Biochemical Sciences, Volume 24, Number 7, 1 July 1999, pp. 253-255). Well, I don't want to edit at all the Q-mind article, but if someone is interested in what has been done in the field maybe a fair account should be presented, different from the current censored article. I think that for conventional neuroscientists it is much better to say "QM is not relevant to brain/cognitive function" simply because they are afraid to admit that one must study physics as well. I consider this objection as a cover of intellectual laziness, not as real argument against Q-mind. I am also neuroscientist, but first use a lot of advanced maths before I talk. Danko Georgiev MD 09:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal?

Not sure about the classification here. Since an explanation of consciousness is unlikely to come from classical physics, it makes sense to look elsewhere. Where else is there to look? Regardless of whether it might seem likely or not that quantum effefcts can be important to brain function, there is nowhere else to look but QM at the present time. Thus it would seem quite rational to consider the theory that QM has a role to play. Just like Quantum brain dynamics this is proto-science. I can not see why it should be considered a paranormal subject, any more than the entry for consciousness. As for the reason given for thinking that QM could not have a part to play, it smacks of prejudice because QM plays a part in everything. It is quite easy to see how QM effects can be amplified to create large scale results. Someone can have a moment's inspiration and do something significant and change the world. Just like the butterfly's wings, even the smallest change in a complex system can have very significant consequences far greater than the action that triggered it. Best to keep an open mind, perhaps? Dndn1011 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:No original research. This is not the place to speculate. The paranormal classificiation is required because 'quantum mind' represents quantum mechanics in a manner inconsistent with general understanding (c.f quantum mysticism). Michaelbusch 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OR rules do not apply to discussion pages, and this is not OR. If they did we could never say very much about an article. The citation is needed because I have to carry out primary research in order to verify it. Additionally, your statement above requires substantiation otherwise I am taking what you are saying on trust. I do not see how QM as a concept is inconcsistent with general understanding. As consciousness is unexplained, provided the idea that general idea of QM cannot be falsified (if the general concept can , please provide a citation) then it is protoscience. I believe you are very wrong in your approach and would ask you to explain yourself. Thank you Dndn1011 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

numbered references, citation of reliable sources

This article needs a numbered reference list. The article needs information that can be associated with verifiable sources that are cited by number in the reference list. This article needs to place an emphasis on the use of peer-reviewed sources. The "quantum mind" field has seen many speculative publications that if mentioned in an encyclopedia should be clearly identified as non-peer reviewed and speculative. --JWSchmidt 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

All theories are speculative. Other than that I would agree with you except that the article has been so heavily censored that it really is not saying very much at all. Unless you are suggesting an expansion of the article, which I would also agree with. The theory is interesting and thus desrves perhaps a little more substance than is currently devoted to it. Dndn1011 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to an attempt to expand the article if such an expansion is done according to the Wikipedia policies for citation of reliable and verifiable sources. To be blunt, there are many physicists who have no scientific expertise in the study of mind and consciousness but they are willing to speculate about how quantum physics might "explain" mind. Wikipedia has no obligation to provide a platform for all such speculations. For any scientific theory, Wikipedia heavily relies on the scientific community's peer review process to sort the crap from the valid content. We should focus first on coverage of what has been published in peer-reviewed sources. When we move to speculation that exists in sources beyond peer-reviewed sources we can give a short summary and state clearly that those speculations have not been subjected to testing, challenge and formal peer-review by the scientific community. --JWSchmidt 17:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch being obstructive

Sorry but user:Michaelbusch is being obstructive. He seems willing to ignore policy, particularly NPOV, to puch his own agenda. This can be clearly seen where he has reverted a simple word change from "Controversial" to "very much a minority opinion" despite a clear argument that "controversial" is appropriate and "very much a minority opinion" is not. Simple change reverted without disucssion. No citations are provided to the claim that this is a "very much a minority opinion", or any specification of the scope of that statement (i.e. very much a minority opinion among whom?). These can be viewed as weasel words. I do not make this statement because I support one view or the other, only in the interests of fairness and NPOV. You can push a crusade against psuedo science too far, claiming that any unproven new idea is pseudo-science or in the realms of fantasy. Please refer to proto-science for more information. This is proto-science according to my understanding. I see no citation provided to show that Quantum Mind as a principle is falsifiable. Additionally many respected and notable scientists are conducting research in this area. Dndn1011 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the argument of quantum effects being too small would be turned on its head should there be successful development of a quantum computer which is also an active area of research (to say that QuantumMind is not studied is nonsense, there are many people studying the idea, including Penrose of course). If we pretend that quantum effects such as superposition and entanglement are insignificant, and not capable of being reflected in large scale behavior, then we should perhaps tell all those researchers into quantum computing to go home. See Quantum computer. Perhaps user:Michaelbusch would like to classify that article as psuedo-science or paranormal. It would not be the first time. I remember my father joking when I was a lad that in the library books on computing were to be found in the section "occult" Dndn1011 10:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"many respected and notable scientists are conducting research in this area" <-- If this is true, then we should be able to create a good Wikipedia article that is mainly built on our descriptions of work that has been published in peer-reviewed sources. I suggest that we all collaborate to make a list of peer-reviewed publications in the field of "Quantum mind". We should also have a bibliography of non-peer reviewed publications about "Quantum mind". I think we need to make a short list of well-known and influential non-peer reviewed publications that are by both advocates of "Quantum mind" and critics of the idea. --JWSchmidt 17:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought this possible. Roger Penrose at the very least must have had something published that has been "peer-reviewed". He certainly has had two important and well known books strongly related to the subject published. But please note, that it is not nescessary for sources quoted in wikipedia to have been from peer reviewed sources. Wikipedia is not a specifically scientific publishing authority, it is a repository for information in general in which the scientific view plays its part. Providing content is notable, verfiable and neutral in point of view, then an article will be good. The scientific way of looking at the world is not the only way to look at the world, and if censorship of ideas that are not compatible with current scientific thinking occurs this diminishes wikipedia greatly. Many over zealous defenders of mainstream scientific thinking forget this when editing wiki articles. This particular article is a case in point. Regardless of body of opinion that exists for or against the possibility that there is something in this theory, the theory exists, is verfified to exist, has not been shown to be falsifiable, there are peoeple working on it and if the thoery is correct it would have very notable consequences. Thus it most certainly belongs in wikipedia, which should inform people of the fact and present state of issues and then allow the reader to make up their own mind. Currently this article is in the category of "paranormal" which is completely wrong. This is protoscience for the reasons I have stated and as yet no one has presented a counter argument to my view. This counter argument would require showing that this theory is falsifiable. Arguments such as "not many people are researching it" are completely irrelevant, because the theory continues to exist inspite of this. Dndn1011 18:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that there seems to be a need to provide legitimacy for the topic 'quantum mind', perhaps Stanford's Plato Encyclopaedia provides a useful reference as a starting point: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/. It's hard to see why this shouldn't be acceptable.

Discussions on quantum mind have been going on since the early days of quantum physics, with authors such as Whitehead and Pauli + Jung. Besides current 'proto-science', the early history is relevant if suitable sources can be found. Davy p 00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dndn1011: Actually, you are mistaken about the peer-reviewed requirement. According to the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision, WP:V is to be understood as meaning that articles on scientific topics need to be sourced from reputable and reliable peer-reviewed sources or widely respected and reputable textbooks. The Tegmark paper seems to be the only source currently listed that both satisfies this and is relevant - while the Bennett, Shor, et al paper (which I read a while ago) is very important and respected, I don't see how it relates to to the topic.

Also, as a response to your argument about quantum computing, this article does a very poor job of explaining the topic. Quantum effects are of extreme importance in the mind just as they are everywhere else - at the most basic level, without quantum effects, there wouldn't be any atoms, even if one were to assume the existence of elementary particles and nucleons. Classical mechanics can't fully explain basic chemistry, let alone consciousness. But that doesn't mean that entanglement and other such phenomena are responsible for the brain's operation in the way that is purported by those who support this - quantum states decohere on a much smaller and faster scale. This is actually one of the largest problems in building a quantum computer as well, and thus they generally need to be operated under extreme conditions. --Philosophus ^T 09:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision, this is a bad decision if your intepretation is full and correct. It would mean that articles such as Afshar experiment would have to be cast out as non-scientific because it has yet to have been published in a peer reviewed source (although this is apparently going to happen soon). Additionally this is your interpretation which given the obvious biases you apply in interpretations of things so far, I would hesitate to take on trust. The best solution of course is to have a category for "Scientific Articles as yet not from peer reviewed sources". Wikipedia should not be attempting to censor information. And even given what you are saying, calling this an article on the paranormal is laughable. Any articles that are just "made up theories" (as if there are theories that are not made up, but anyway...) will fail on grounds of notability.

With regards to the argument I presented on Quantum Computing, I was fully aware of what the article meant. However you rubbish the possibility by applying assumptions. The critical assumption you make is that "quantum states decohere on a much smaller and faster scale" make it impossible for these effects to cause larger scale behavior. Additionally "purported by those who support this" is unfair, as they are considering the possibility not stating it to be true (there is no proof as yet), something which obviously you can't cope with, and also I should point out that "and thus they generally need to be operated under extreme conditions" is a nonsense because so far quantum computers do not opperate at all, because they are still only theoretical, just as the possibility that the brain is a quantum computer is. Might does not mean Right. (OK bad pun sorry). If you can not prove that something cannot be then it might be. This is the case with both quantum computing and quantum mind theory. The value of the "might" depends on the possible value of any discoveries that result from research in these areas. It would appear the value is equally high for both. I hope that clarifies the purpose of my analogy. It saddens me that you fail consitently to be aware of your own assumptions and personal biases, yet continue to act as an arbiter of truth. Dndn1011 19:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to explain quantum mechanics to everyone. I would suggest reading John Preskill's course notes for his quantum computation course, which do a good job of explaining quantum mechanics in the context of computation and quantum information theory. --Philosophus ^T 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Philosophus, some errors are not matter of knowing QM. Tegmark says that a system is classical one if t_dec << t_dyn, where t_dec is the decoherence time, and t_dyn is the dynamics time of the system. The error is that he calculates microtubule decoherence time t_dec_MT and improperly compares it with the neuronal electric dynamics time scale t_dyn_N. But this is just obvious overlook. One needs to compare t_dec_MT with t_dyn_MT and since tubulins are enzymes/proteins, their dynamic timescale is 10-15 picoseconds. So the involvement of QM is only marginal when one must understand Tegmark's error. To quote that Tegmark cites Hameroff that the needed coherence time for MT is 25 ms is logical fallacy, because Hameroff is not even authority in molecular biology. Danko Georgiev MD 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I am no expert in QM or molecular biology, and indeed this places me in a good position to edit an article that is meant to be understandable to non-experts. If someone has a proof that the Quantum Mind concept is not possible then that would be one thing (let's see the refrences), but it seems clear that arguments presented are are not water-tight for either side of the debate. The debate is continuing. If I present a logical high level argument and it is nonsense, then it is no good just saying "I don't have time to explain quantum mechanics to everyone". The article is supposed to represent the true state of current thinking and present it in a manner that even I could understand. It seems to me that many people think that quantum mind theory is unlikely (often these are people appear to be those who still think that deterministic algorithms can explain consciousness and drive their AI research in this direction, even though there are strong philosophical arguments to the contrary), and equally there are many people who consider it a good place to look in trying to understand the mystery of consciousness. As I have said before, there is nowhere else to look. If there is somewhere else to look then the article should mention that.

As an aside, and presenting a counter argument which has at least as much validity as guesses over significance of time scales, the scientific view of the universe being deterministic, which was the central theme of classical physics, presented a big question: "What of free will?". Quantum Mechanics came along and showed that the universe might be non-deterministic at the most fundemental level. This was good news for those who felt that that they did have control over their own lives and were not simply playing out a script. It provided a possible way of saving the concept of free will. Somewhat important because otherwise how could any of us take responsibility for our own actions? Well, hello? Anyone spot the connection? If quantum mechanics allows the concept of free will to have validity, then it would suggest rather strongly that free will and quantum mechanics are going to be related. I don't need to be an expert in Quantum Mechanics or Molecular Biology to come up with that argument. Since free will and consciousness are rather tightly related (don't confuse free will with randomness... a six sided die may generated random choices freely, but to have free will suggests a conscious choice!) and since quantum mechanics provides a way to allow free will to exist at all (even if it can't actually explain it as yet), it is only logical to conclude that quantum mechanics *may* (yes that's may....) have something to do with conciousness. Frankly the antagonism towards this concept is quite irrational. Dndn1011 11:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note on Explaining Science

Philosophus raises an important point: explaining quantum physics or any other field of science through Wikipedia is almost impossible. This can be a problem when it comes to explaining edits or classifications, as has happened on this article. Fortunately, this is Wikipedia, so there are enough people who know a field well enough to edit it reliably. The problem is knowing one's limits. I defer to Philosophus when it comes to theoretical physics, for example. Michaelbusch 05:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A spirit of Curiosity and Exploration

trues gnosis can be arrived upon in various ways . mckenna was very passionate about straphora cubensis ( see , food of the gods , true hallucinations and invisible landscape ) . but i thing the most frustrating thing , is if one has had a truly trancendant and visionary experience ( william blake etc ) , it is rather frustrating on re entering earth zone only to find the blind leading the blind into ever darker little circles and holes .

how to translate a deeper understanding of the universe to the others left behind ? this is resonant with other points i am raising across wikpedia about the necessity of articles which are either about , as yet unmeasurable by present scientific methods phenomena to be able to talk about the implicit questions raised by their existence .

otherwise remove all of your articles on psychotropic , pysychadelic substances : all psychonauts ( mckenna , wilson etc ); all researchers in fields which are exploring unusual phenomena ( sheldrake , lylle watson etc ) ; all physicists with unusual and groundbreaking ideas : all philosophers who are creating a context for understandine new pheniom,ena ( wilber etc ); all ex nasa scientists who have since gone on to have direct experience of unusual phenomena and have continued on to do the most exaustive research in said area ( barbara brennan specificall ).... because this site is a dead end of pencil pushing pedants who wouldnt recvognise a new idea if it hit them on the head and have rendered wikpedia lifeless , uncreative and completely unfertile with regards to the spirit of curiosity and exploration which surely should be at the centre of any science or knowledge gathering exercise .Thesource42 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tegmark's critique

I post here clear explanation of Tegmark's and Hameroff's errors. The paper has been refereed and published NQJ although the journal itself might not be considered as top journal. Well, Tegmark's classification of classical vs. quantum systems requires "the dynamic timescale of the system under study to be equal to the decoherence timescale of the system". Hameroff in Orch OR however does a big mismodeling - microtubules are proteins, and they have certain enzymatic functions - this requires dynamic timescale for tubulin to be of the order of the dynamic timescale of every other enzyme - it means 10-15 picoseconds. Hameroff for unknown to me reasons requires microtubule coherence time of 25 milliseconds, which is roughly the time for the neuronal membrane electric firing from the brain cortex to thalamus and back. This is called "reverberation loop". Itself the system with the dynamic timescale of 25 ms is the reciprocal loop - cortical neuron + thalamic neuron. And for 25 ms the electric firing goes from the cortex to the thalamus, generates new firing that returns back from the thalamus to the brain cortex. But such a severe error to claim after that microtubules are not quantum system, just because their decoherence time is shorter than the above described classical process of electric reverberation is very unserious. All this is perfectly explained in my paper NQJ and I give evidence that each conscious step of human is far beyond the shortest time interval able to create perception of "subjective feeling of time passed". Thus each conscious step is certainly not generating "feeling of time" and there is no any paradox or problem if one assumes that microtubules and q-mind is a kind of 100 GHz quantum processor. Tegmark is certainly not a specialist in Q-mind, and Hameroff-penrose's Orch OR is not the best Q-mind model either. Danko Georgiev MD 09:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. Michaelbusch 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored1Z 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Err, that policy doesn't apply to original research, and was never intended to be applied in such a way. Inclusion of original research is explicitly against policy per WP:NOR. --Philosophus ^T 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop this discussion and leave the articles as they are: cross referenced

These two articles cross reference each other and should not be merged. They are in the same field but refer to different subjects, are of different scope and describe approaches by different people. Richwil 09:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Proponents of the Quantum mind theory

This article lacks a clear definition of the theory prior to the criticism. Would someone please expand upon the theory, either by adding to the introduction or adding a new section outlining the argument?

There is not a single versions of QMind theory. It might be possible to summarise some of the variations. Penrose's theory is already described on a number of pages, although they are currently

in a disorganised state. 1Z 12:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief summery of the major arguments would be in order? 80.42.177.132 10:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge Quantum Brain Dynamics

The topics appear identical or variations on the same concept. Ripe 21:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There are several distinct theories of quantum consciousness, which are based on quite different assumptions. Thus Penrose/Hameroff look for access to fundamental spacetime, quantum brain dynamics sees the interaction of quantum fields with the biological brain as the key factor, and Stapp, using something close to the traditional Copenhagan Interpretation of quantum theory seems to look for an existing consciousness to collapse wave functions within the brain. Moreover, this does not exhaust the list of quantum related theories. Of course, they could be dealt with one by one in the same long article or possibly book, but they are too different for any real merging to be feasible. Persephone19 16:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Article failing in adequacy and possibly also in neutrality

There are at least five main quantum consciousness theories involving very different mechanisms. None of these are really described in this article. Neutrality is also questionable. Wikipedia's guidance on controversial subjects is that both sides should be given however silly one or both may seem. The bit on Tegmark does not really mention that there have been replies to and criticism of his paper. Further, the bit saying that there is no peer reviewed evidence risks misleading the casual reader, since there are peer reviewed discussions about quantum consciousness and also peer reviewed accounts of experiments suggestive of quantum coherence in biological tissue. I think a bit should be appended to the existing article describing the main theories, and there should be some improvement to neutrality. I'm not particularly happy about doing this, but I may put something in before long if no one else does. Persephone19 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Related material on other pages needs to be revised as well. WP does not need another muddled exposition of Penrose. 1Z 08:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about there being problems on other pages. As for this one, what it seems to lack is an exposition of at least the five or six main theories, of which Penrose, muddled or otherwise, is only one. Persephone19 17:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The article currently refers to the "quantum mind hypothesis" without ever explaining what this hypothesis is. Then motivations are discussed, but no mention is made as to how those motivations are addressed in the ethereal theory. Not to mention the "ongoing debate," but debate into what? I ask! Without a summary of relevant hypotheses, or at least links to related articles, this article serves no purpose.

Also, the motivation section is b.s. for other reasons. A common argument underlying the quantum mind thesis is that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, if only because Galileo and Newton (together with their admirers, viz., Locke, Hobbes and Descartes) excluded the secondary qualities from the physical world. Excuse me? 1. A whole lot happened in psychology research between Newton and QM. 2. In jumping from CM to QM, one misses statistical mechanics. It's a whole lot more applicable to biological systems than classical mechanics. It should be addressed. 3. Locke, Hobbes, and Descartes are philosophers; what do they have to do with Galileo and Newton? 4. No person excluded the secondary qualities from the physical world, they're just hard to describe. It doesn't mean classical mechanics failed, the people of the time just didn't have the machinery to do what needed to be done in brain research. JFlav 04:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The passage quotes an argument made by QMind proponents. It may be BS, but it is verifiable BS.

Do you have a reference for explanations of qualia or secondary qualities using statistical mechanics?1Z 10:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but that's not what I was claiming anyway. I never said statistical mechanics was any kind of answer to the hard problem of consciousness. Perhaps I could make myself more clear.

Two logical fallacies are at work in this article:

1. A false dichotomy between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics.

   The quantum mind hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot fully explain consciousness and suggests that quantum mechanical phenomena such as quantum entanglement and superposition may play an important part in the brain's function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness.

   A common argument underlying the quantum mind thesis is that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness, if only because Galileo and Newton (together with their admirers, viz., Locke, Hobbes and Descartes) excluded the secondary qualities from the physical world.

   These quotes are from the article. If, as you claim, they quote "an argument made by QMind proponents," these quotes are uncited.

2. A straw man, as classical mechanics is not used to study the brain or mind anyway.

   Classical mechanics (commonly confused with Newtonian mechanics, which is a subfield thereof) is used for describing the motion of macroscopic objects, from projectiles to parts of machinery, as well as astronomical objects, such as spacecraft, planets, stars, and galaxies.

My earlier rant was partially in reference to the poor writing in the article (and I think my first paragraph still stands), and partially in reference to these logical fallacies. In fact there are multiple other overlapping disciplines that are all better suited to deal with the structures and dynamics of the brain. These include, but are not limited to, neuroscience (including neurology and neuropsychology), biophysics, biochemistry, and cell biology just to name a few. I apologize for being glib, but I lumped all these together as statistical mechanics, a gross oversimplification.

If the cited authors actually make the claims that only classical mechanics is currently used in brain research, a straw man, and that quantum mechanics is the only alternative area of science to use in studying the brain, a false dichotomy, this should be mentioned in the Ongoing Debate section (which, on an unrelated note, I think should be renamed "Criticism"). If, however, the authors do not make this claim, and only the article contains these fallacies, then the article should be revised to reflect the authors' actual statements. Either way, some mention needs to be made of the other very important branches of science at work in the brain. JFlav 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrase 'classical mechanics' may have been used to mean something like 'deterministic processes'. And there is indeed something of a philosophical problem at least if the brain is said to function solely on the basis of deterministic processes, for there can then be no such thing as free will.

The idea that there may be something about life which goes beyond processes which can be described by the strictly causal laws of science sometimes seems to be too romantic for hard-nosed physicalists, who often reject it with surprising vehemence. A fair few scientists though, peer-reviewed to boot, do subscribe to the 'beyond physicalism' or 'beyond reductionism' camps. It seems neither unreasonable nor bad science to look to QM, as some of them do, for possible resolution of the free will/determinism paradox. Davy p 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But "beyond determinism" is neither "beyond physicalism" nor "beyond reductionism". 1Z 00:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Persephone

You addition of material on Bohm and co is welcome, but I cannot see why you have started a completely new section. doesn't it belong under "Examples" ? 1Z 11:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have transferred the disputed section from the main article to below. It is incomplete and seems to have been cut-and-pasted. 1Z 19:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Five Go Looking for Quantum Consciousness

The sections below attempt to deal with the four main theories of quantum consciousness. The four main theories, which are long-established and frequently in mainstream literature and text books are dealt with in alphabetical order as, the Implicate Order, Orch OR, Quantum Brain Dynamics and Stapp. Gustav Bernroider at the University of Salzburg has previously produced material sympathetic to David Bohm's implicate order but has subsequently produced papers that suggest a brain mechanism for consciousness distinct from any of the four main theories. His proposal is appended to the section on Bohm's implicate order.

The Implicate Order -- David Bohm,Basil Hiley,Karl Pribram

David Bohm, who was assisted by Basil Hiley, took the view that quantum theory and relativity contradicted one another, and that this contradiction implied that there had to exist a more fundamental level in the universe^[14]. This more fundamental level was proposed to represent an undivided wholeness and an implicate order, from which arises the explicate order of the universe that we actually experience and as described by classical physics.

Bohm's implicate order applies both to matter and consciousness, and he suggests that it can explain the relationship between the two. Mind and matter are viewed as related projections into the explicate order from the underlying reality of the implicate order. Bohm argues that the extension of matter and separation of its parts in space as described by classical physics does not provide any concepts that help us in understanding consciousness.

Bohm compares this problem to Descartes discussion of the difference between mind and matter. Descartes to some extent relied on God to resolve the gap. Bohm says that since Descartes time the idea of introducing God into the equation has been let drop, and he claims that as a result conventional modern thinking has been left with no means of bridging the gap between matter and consciousness.

In Bohm's scheme there is an unbroken wholeness at the fundamental level of the universe, in which conciousness is not separated from matter. Bohm draws on the ideas of Karl Pribram. Pribram views sight and the other senses as analogous to lens, without which the universe would appear as a hologram. Pribram thinks that information is recorded all over the brain, and that this information is enfolded into a whole, also in the manner of a hologram, although it is suggested that the physical function involved is more complicated than a hologram^[15&16]. Pribram proposes that

I had to break off while putting in something longer.

The question really is whether this is going to become a proper article on quantum mind theories, where four, five or even six quite distinct theories would be described or is it left in the current muddled state. A lot of people don't like quantum consciousness, but there something funny about an encyclopaedia that has a quite long, quite well written and very attractively illustrated section on astrology but cannot come up with a sensible article on theories which have been advanced by leading scientists. Persephone19 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that's a relatively polite way of saying that the examples sections on Penrose and Stapp needs to be fuller and where's quantum brain dynamics which doesn't get a proper coverage in its own article and also Bohm. But certainly Bohm and QBD could be under examples. Chalmers should go somewhere else, because while he attacks conventional consciousness theories, he is also opposed to quantum theories. Persephone19 22:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All right lets have another go putting Bohm and friends in examples following on Stapp and Penrose. Persephone19 14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now tried to summarise the ideas of Bohm and some of his supporters, in the hope that this approach could be used for further additions to the page. Persephone19 17:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To be relevant, Chalmers has oto be saying something about QMind theories; he does not have to be saying anything positive.1Z 21:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Including four, five or six main strands will take some doing. But that seems to be what is needed if science is to be on as good a footing as astrology. I don't mean to complicate things at a time when progress may be being made with this article, but shouldn't there be a mention of Alfred North Whitehead and early aspects of process physics (those to which Abner Shimony sometimes refers, and develops, rather than the slightly nutty religious version that seems to have spun out from it). Whitehead saw consciousness as intrinsic in process from the outset. Davy p 00:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful here: did Whitehead himself mention quantum physics? 1Z 08:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

He certainly wasn't unfamiliar with it, though his appraoch is from a somewhat different direction.

Google with [+Whitehead +"quantum mechanics] +conscious +mind] gets lots of hits, including this mention: EPPERSON, Michael. Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. New York: Fordham University Press, 2004. xiv + 261 pp. Cloth, $55.00--The central claims of this book are that the philosophy of Whitehead and quantum mechanics are intimately linked, especially in their incompatibility with "materialism," and that each of these can illuminate the other.

What I wondered, however, was something more along the lines of Appendix 6 in Stapp's Mindful Universe or Abner Shimony's comments about Whitehead in Penrose's 'The Large, the small and the Human Mind'.

From Stapp: "A number of physicists, including Abner Shimony (1965, 1993), Rudolf Haag (1996), and myself (Stapp, 1977, 1979) have emphasized the seeming appropriateness of the ontological ideas of Alfred North Whitehead. Those ideas, even though they have been tied into quantum physics in the references cited above, fall under the heading of “speculative philosophy”. Whitehead was stimulated by early developments in quantum theory but relied more on philosophical and logical considerations than on empirical data, or the detailed structure of relativistic quantum field theory. But in view of the way basic physical theory has been moving in recent years it is not clear that the “speculations” of Whitehead are completely different in kind from what now frequently appears in physics journals." Davy p 22:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I've fixed up the citations list (somewhat). The article now uses proper ref tags; previously, some of the citations were being manually numbered. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to use the citation capabilities built in to wikipedia. fraggle (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Persephone19 (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Refs need fixing

I've never seen a Wikipedia article with self-referential references. The notes are tied to the references, which is non-standard and awkward. They should be directly used, and as much as possible verifiable using URLs. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understood it, the present set up was a correction of what myself and other editors had put in previously. I've never been too at home with what was and wasn't correct for the references, so I'm not going to attempt anything ambitious. I have, however, put in more links to the references and also the further reading list. It's mainly journals, so there may be quite a lot of navigation and logging in beyond that point. Most of the references still without links are for books.Persephone19 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Essay

The essay comment at the top of the article appears entirely unjustified. There is nothing in the form of original research in this article that I am aware of. The article covers the main quantum consciousness theorists who are well known in the field and attempts to explain what they are saying, along with references to books and papers by these theorists. The fact that the theories do not have wide support is noted, and work by some of the main opponents such as Max Tegmark is mentioned and referenced. Persephone19 (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have re-read the quantum mind article today and continue to find it incomprehensible that anybody reading this article could view it as being an essay giving it a personal opinion. The main sections are headed clearly as being the concepts of particular well known theorists such as Penrose and Bohm. Throughout these sections it is constantly stressed that the ideas explains are the suggestions or opinions of the theorists, as with phrases saying that the scientist or theorists as a whole, claim, suggest or hypothesise what is being said in the relevant section. No position is argued as to whether these are right or wrong. The end part of the article tries to point the main objections from scientists such as Max Tegmark and philosophers such as the Churchlands and Chalmers. Replies by some of the quantum theorists are mentioned in the interests of neutrality. The introduction does make some general background remarks, but any normal reader would see these for what they are, as setting the stage for some rather difficult material.

Nonetheless, some alterations have been made. I have removed the section on Evan Harris Walker. The editor who put this in might like to reinstate it, but I would think some of the statements about information need referencing, and the para on what Walker is actually proposing probably needs to be enlarged to make it comprehensible to the lay reader. I couldn't understand it at any rate. I have removed a sentence saying objective reduction is strikingly different from other versions of quantum theory. It's really a statement of the obvious, but someone might think it's an opinion.

I have effectively merged the Quantum Evidence section into the Ongoing Debate section. I have taken out the bit about quantum interference in mental images, as I'm not sure they relate very closely to the consciousness theories, but the editors should put them back if they think they are relevant. I have also taken out the quote from Price on coherence at the scale of neurons, because it doesn't seem to have much to do with the theories as discussed. Tegmark is much more relevant to the coherence issue.

I have simplified the lay out a bit and done a bit of copy editing, although I didn't think the style criticisms were really justified.

If you do think you detect personal opinion or style problems could you specify where this is so that improvements can be attempted, rather than making sweeping and apparently groundless assertions.

If we are talking in terms of clean up, it might be more useful to clean up the capricious referencing and block quote technology,which has considerably obstructed the editing of this article. Persephone19 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a Private Reflectance

In October I asked if anyone not happy with the article to make specific criticisms rather than sweeping than and unhelpful ones. It is therefore disappointing and a violation of Wikipedia procedure, at least in spirit, to see that someone has placed a boiler plate, without having the courtesy to discuss the problems they have with the article on this page.

I am frankly baffled by the main contention that this is some sort of private view of the subject. I suppose it is necessary to define normal usage in the English language. To say that something is private applies that it is an opinion generated directly from the person writing, in this case an editor. If something is entered as the opinion or the result of the study of a scientist or an aspect of the theory they have created, it is clearly the scientist's view and not the private view of the editor.

As the placer of the boiler plate has not read the article, I will outline many places where the article clearly refers to the work/opinion of scientists rather than any view the editors might have:-

Firstly note that the larger part of the article comes under the names of particular theorists or theories, certainly implying that what comes below is from third parties rather than the editors.

In the rest of the text there are repeated indications that the views are the views of the scientists being discussed

Under the section on David Bohm, we have para. 1 line. 1 'David Bohm took the view ...' line 2: 'He claimed ...' Para 2, Line 1; 'Bohm's implicate order applies ....' Para 3, Line 1: 'Bohm discusses ...' Para 4, Line 1: 'Bohm sees the movement ....' Para 4, Line 2: 'He claims to derive evidence ....' Para 4, Line 3: 'He claims these studies ....' Para 4, Line 5: 'He compared this to ....' Para 4, Line 6: 'Bohm never proposed ....'

Under the original section on Roger Penrose, we have: Para. 3, line 1: 'Godel demonstrated that ...' Para. 4. line 1: 'Penrose ... built a further .... argument on ... ' Para 4, line 5: 'Penrose claimed that Godel's theorem demonstrated ...' Para. 9. line 1: 'Penrose went on to propose that ...' Para 11. line 1: 'Penrose had lacked any detailed proposals ....' Para 11. line 7: 'It is suggested that ....'

Under the section on Henry Stapp: Para 1 line 1: 'Henry Stapp's approach ...' Para 1 line 4: 'Stapp sees collapse as ...' Para 2 line 1: 'Stapp envisages consciousness ....' Para 2 line 4: 'The brain in this theory is proposed ....' Para 4 line 1: 'Stapp proposes ....'

Under the section on Quantum Brain Dynamics; Para 1 line 1: 'The ideas behind QBD derived originally from the physicists ....' Para 2 line 1: 'Frohlich is the source of the idea that ....' Para 2 line 3: 'He (Frohlich) viewed the electrical potential ....' Para 2 line 4: 'His studies claimed to show that ...' Para 2 line 6: '... biomolecules were proposed ...' Para 2 line 10: 'Vitiello argues that ...' Para 3 line 1: 'Vitiello provides citations, which are claimed ...' Para 4 line 1: 'QBD proposes that ...' Para 4, line 5: 'The proponents of QBD differ ....'

and many other examples could be given.

I fear that was is private in this case, is not anything in the article, but the private dislike of the placer of the boiler plate for quantum mind theories. They are certainly in a large and confident majority in that respect. However, this is not relevant to Wikipedia articles, which ask for a clear exposition of theories/ideas/beliefs that are sufficiently common, regardless of their scientific quality. Thus Wikipedia supports an article on Astrology, although this is not an idea that has much support from the scientific community.

I am aware that the word 'quantum' gets stuck in front of many ideas that are not particularly sound, and a sense of being scientifically knowledgable may flow from denouncing such material. However, that does not justify a careless approach to the main theories of quantum consciousness. These have involved some of the best minds of the last half century, and address a serious problem in science, which is unresolved, and has implications that reach beyond mere curiosity into medicine, ethics and even the judicial system. This requires that ideas are discussed properly, rather than people posting the first criticism that comes into their heads.

The boiler plate remarks about style etc. are similarly unhelpful. I have in fact created a new version of the Penrose section, which may have been showing the effects of multiple editing over a period of years. I apologise to other editors if some of their stuff has been chopped, which was not the intention. However, it should be fairly easy to put bits back in, given the new version gives broadly the same description. I also deleted the philosophy bit. A bit high-handed but it didn't seem that clear, and the David Chalmers section covers a good deal of the philosophy. here again someone might like a new section. Apart from that it reads all right to me. If anyone doesn't like bits stylistically, say so and we can look at altering them. Its no help making unspecific criticism about the whole thing.

I will leave this for a few days, but not beyond that if no one is responding. The article is at the top of the first page on Google, and the implication that it is substantially is deliberately misleading for anyone accessing it.Persephone19 (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The order of things

"The ideas behind QBD derived originally ... In quantum brain dynamics (QBD)..." is not how it should be. It should be like this:

"The ideas behind quantum brain dynamics (QBD) derived...In QBD..."

I'm changing this.

☠ QuackOfaThousandSuns (Talk) ☠ 00:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also in respect of style I have altered the 'we' and 'us' usage in the 'Evan Harris Walker' section and have removed the related boiler plate.Persephone19 (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Quantum intelligence

I suspect that insects and and spiders may be exercising quantum intelligence when we are sitting around watching them do their groovy things..

I have been doing some theoretical research into zero-dimension (time). Where x,y,and z dimensions convect mass/energy/gravity, etc. t-dimension convects a whole different range of energies: namely, mind. Before you give me *that* look, consider that time has its own lagrangian system. Hence, we have more intelligence than rocks. We get that intelligence from somewhere. Just as gravity is but a faint signal by the time it reaches our 4-d space, so does intelligence face considerable dimensional attenuation by the time it gets here. Pardon me if I do not make a mathematiucal case here. If Wikimedia had a full-function math, including abelian, it would be a different issue.

Your thoughts?

M. J. Dykes rocmike3@aol.com 63.3.6.2 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The main suggestion might be to think in terms of the 'Libet half second' and related to this Penrose's take on closed timelike curves. Experiments conducted by Benjamin Libet showed that it requires 500 ms of stimulation for anything to come into consciousness, although signals from the body reach the brain in between 14 and 50 ms. However, we are not aware of this, with the brain as it were recalibrating the experience to seem instantaneous. Libet's other important set of experiments showed that in bodily actions such as flexing a finger, an unconscious readiness potential appeared in the brain before the subject was consciously aware of the decision to act. Penrose suggested that these two counter inuitive findings indicated quantum features at work in the brain, such as counterfactuals, features that might take place but actually do not.

With regard to Penrose's concept of 'non-computability', he suggests that this might be related to closed time curves, where the continous tilting of light cones could result in a traveler arriving in his own past. Penrose thinks or hopes that this is not possible in the macroscopic world, but that it mighr be possible at the quantum level. In this case, it is suggested that a quantum computation could feed on its own output, i.e the computing done since the computing particles left the point into whose past they have now come. This might be the meaning of non-computable.

The above might belong better in the Orch-OR article, as it only seems to apply to Penrose and tends to be quite controversial. Persephone19 (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well what OP said was patent nonsense (also WP offers "full-function" math, as there are technical articles here describing mathematics on the highest levels). As for everything Persephone said, the fundamental flaw in Quantum Mind reasoning is that something that defies explanation can be explained by something we don't yet understand. And the idea of 'non-computability' is actually well-defined mathematically on several levels, but is a completely different concept from Quantum Mind (though QIT can allow for hypercomputation, it does not do so in a way that's somehow different from classical information theory). SamuelRiv (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The argument seems not really to be about the definition of non-computability so much as the controversial use that Penrose tried to make of it. He proposes that there is some process in the brain that allows human mathematical understanding to go beyond the limitations of the Godel theorem, and Hameroff seems to have extended this to embrace subjective consciousness/qualia etc. These suggestions have been rejected by a wide consensus of opinion. However, it is fair to say that Penrose connected this to quantum theory, because he proposed that the only mechanism that could support such a process in the brain was a special kind of wave function collapse known as objective reduction of OR.

Really one can't treat quantum mind as one concept as David Bohm's implicate order, quantum brain dynamics, Stapp's ideas and other suggestions are radically different from one another. Only Penrose goes for the non-computability concept.

The more general criticism of explaining something that defies understanding with something we don't yet understand might seem a bit defeatist or even 'new mysterian'. It may well be that there is no substantial connection between consciousness and quantum theory, but if the scientific momentum of the last few centuries is going to be maintained, these are both areas where we need to improve our understanding. Persephone19 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I was being too nice. Quantum Theory is very well understood except in the realm of gravitational interactions. In fact, it's the most well-understood theory in physics when taken to the realm of electromagnetic interactions, which are plainly the only interactions that count on biological scales. When I said "something we don't yet understand," I mean a proposal (not even a hypothesis, because it hasn't been formally defined) taken from out of the blue with some possibility of formal definition, but meanwhile having no bearing on reality whatsoever. That's not to say that it couldn't mean something in the future, but offering it as an explanation before it's even been defined is not science - it's functionally equivalent to saying "God did it".

We always have to improve understanding, but that doesn't occur when people ponder nonsense (as OP is) in an attempt to satisfy a question for which they are already begging the answer. Quantum Mind proponents almost always want free will, or God, or something that is not or cannot be defined scientifically, and are plainly skirting the hard-science requirement of having a well-defined hypothesis, or even a well-defined 'answer'. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This leaves us with something that defies explanation. What would constitute a well-defined hypothesis in respect of consciousness? I've read through a good deal of the non-quantum approaches to consciousness, but have not been particularly impressed by their explanatory power, or their ability to be falsified by experiment. Persephone19 (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I take the hard science requirement to really refer to the proposals making claims or predictions that can be falsified. The quantum consciousness proposals are many and various, but the Penrose/Hameroff Orch-OR scheme has the most specific proposals as regards both objective reduction of the wave function and suggested mechanisms within the brain. Hameroff has gone on to make various predictions that could be falsified. One of these is an experiment relative to objective reduction, while the other 19 look for quantum coherence in microtubules and various correlations between microtubular activity and other brain activity. There is a summarised list of these on the Orch-OR discussion page on 12 August 2007. Persephone19 (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Under Henry Stapp, the following statement is made: "...whereas for the rest of the physical universe an external representation plus a knowledge of the laws of physics allows an accurate prediction of future events." One of the major points of quantum mechanics is that this is NOT true. The QM universe is indeterminate. When the whole point of this entry is to discuss QM vs. classical implications with regard to the mind, brain, and consciousness, it seems ironically ludicrous to state something so fundamentally incorrect, and ignorant of the fundamental principles of QM which are what are supposed to set this entry apart from any other discussion of mind. Will whoever is responsible please fix this??? Thank you. 98.222.63.123 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Many physicists, perhaps the majority, subscribe to the "many-worlds"/"decoherence" school of thought about QM. By these lights the apparent indeterminacy is an illusion due to indexical uncertainty. ciphergoth (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The above doesn't matter - any interpretation of quantum mechanics will do that. As to IP above, QM does provide an accurate prediction of future events, in that we are almost 100% certain that operation A will result in a value of a+ 50% of the time and a- 50% of the time, no matter how and where we run it. Extrapolating beyond that is indeterminate in many manners in many senses beyond QM. So IP, your opinion is a misconception of the epistemology of science. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Related?

"While at least one researcher claims otherwise, Jeffrey Gray states in his book Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem, that tests looking for the influence of electromagnetic fields on brain function have been universally negative in their result."

While I have really little understanding of the subject, I think this might be related: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128284.400-powerful-magnets-hamper-our-abilityntangle-to-lie.html Sorry if it is not relevant, it just caught my eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Quantum theories of consciousness are very varied. Of those discussed in the quantum mind article only one is basically about the influence of an extended electromagnetic field, two are related to wave function collapse, one to quantum coherence in ion channels in the neuronal membrane and one to a level underlying both quantum theory and relativity. Elsewhere on Wikipedia I think there is an article on EM field consciousness theories mentioning the work of Jojo McFadden and Susan Pockett. Some of these theories might be regarded as classical in not dragging in the specifically quantum problems of wave function collapse/decoherence, entanglement or connections to spacetime.

I found Gray's consciousness book more useful than most in this area. He also spent quite a lot of time discussing quantum consciousness, which is unusual. His main focus seemed to be on Penrose/Hameroff which is essentially about wave function collapse. Persephone19 (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that really addresses the IP's point. The fact is that electromagnetic fields can affect the brain if they are strong enough -- magnetic brain stimulation is an established technique, for example. But there is very little evidence that electromagnetic fields generated inside the brain itself (which are orders of magnitude weaker) have meaningful effects. I have doubts that Jeffrey Gray, a neurophysiologist, made as unqualified a statement as is given in our article: he knew better. Looie496 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128274.300-empathy-enhanced-by-magnetic-stimulation-of-the-brain.html and from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome "Savant-like skills may be latent in everyone and have been stimulated in people by directing low-frequency magnetic pulses into the brain's left hemisphere, which is thought to deactivate this dominant region (in at least 90% of right-handed people) and allow the less dominant right hemisphere to take over, allowing for processing of savant-like tasks." Once again, I'm no expert, but it seems to me the influence of em fields is not all that uncommon. Also: http://articles.cnn.com/1998-03-20/health/9803_20_magnets.depression_1_ect-depression-treatment-ends?_s=PM:HEALTH http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128321.500-quantum-life-the-weirdness-inside-us.html A new article on QM in biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Going back to Jeffrey Gray, the main discussion in his book refers to Penrose/Hameroff which depends on the collapse of the wave function of a quantum coherent process rather than the action of EM fields permeating the brain. Gray rejected the Penrose model because he didn't think it could select for specific qualia. So it would seem untrue to suggest that he made an unqualified statement about anything in this area. Hopefully the article doesn't come as giving unqualified support to anything, but merely describes what the quantum brain dynamics people are proposing.Persephone19 (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference templates

Hello guys, I incorporated all references using the templates. Please study how to use them, it is easy.

• Template:Cite web
• Template:Cite book
• Template:Cite journal

I recommend you not to collapse the templates on a single line. Also if you need to cite a reference that is already in the list use "<ref name="xxx"></ref>". For more details, check my previous post at Talk:Orch-OR#Citation_templates. The benefit of using templates is that Wikipedia has several bots that can check and automatically fill in the missing information such as doi, missing page numbers, issue or volume numbers, etc. Danko Georgiev (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How citations help justify the speculations by Bernroider or Hameroff?

I do not see how by citing 5 or even 11 references by people who work conventional neuroscience, who have never heard of Q-mind can justify certain Q-mind speculations. For example, citing 5 references refs.5-9 on K+ channel structure makes no whatsoever contribution to Bernroider's speculations. One can cite even 100 other papers on K+ channel structure and it will make no difference. What is important is to cite the original articles where Bernroider explains his proposal. The same holds for the 11 references copy-pasted from one of Hameroff's papers. Yes, gap junctions have certain functions in the CNS, but none of this authors cited in refs.16-26 has any idea that their work will be cited as an evidence for Orch OR. In my opinion copy-pasting references from published Q-mind papers is not good practice, and this does not lead to improvement of the wikipedia article. I only inserted nice templates, but I vote for removal of these irrelevant citations, which I don't want to delete myself. Danko Georgiev (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you and would back you up if you want to take action. Looie496 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be the low credibility of anyone involved with quantum consciousness research. Reference 3 and 4 do refer to Bernroider's papers. Reference 4 is the main paper, but I think this appears in a rather minor journal. It seems reasonable to assure readers that the K+ ion channel material is reported by 'Science', 'Nature' etc. and that they only need to see the actual presence of quantum states in this mechanism as the speculative part. Maybe the number of citations is a bit over the top. Perhaps we should consider pruning rather than wholesale deletion. The same might go for the Hameroff gamma synchrony references. The gamma synchrony may sound to you like old hat, but there are plenty of people around in parts of consciousness studies to whom it comes as a complete surprise. Here too perhaps we need some references to assure them that it's not just Hameroff's idea, and that only the quantum states are speculative. Persephone19 (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The current wording does not appear to make any real distinction between the mainstream science and the more fringe quantum mind opinions. The section on Bernoider is a paraphrasing of his own words: [1] IRWolfie- (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For the most part, I have difficulty in detecting the lack of distinction between mainstream and speculated. The whole text is full of the names of the various authors of the theories and the fact that they 'propose' or 'suggest' various notions. If these were established the text would tend to read 'show' or 'demonstrate'. If you don't think this is the case could you point out the specific places were clarity is lacking and the editors can then improve the text.

At the moment, I have only identified one or two areas. If nobody immediately objects I intend to clarify the aspects of microtubules and the gamma synchrony that are established as distinct from Hameroff's suggestions. I will also do some minor rewording of the Bernroider section to clarify where it is talking established aspect of the ion channels.

I am again not quite sure where you are coming from with the criticism of paraphrasing. Wikipedia is looking for a neutral desription of what a theory proposes and okay that's a bit like paraphrasing. Again you could mention specific gripes with the wording. It would be nice to mention reasoned criticisms of Bernroider, but critics of quantum consciousness tend to be happy just to refute Penrose and move quickly on.

In reading through this article, I have identified some other problems. The Penrose/Hameroff section has become out of date. Wikipedia's Orch-OR carries the more up to date version of what Hameroff in particular is claiming, and I intend bringing this article into line, otherwise Wikipedia is running conflicting versions. The end part on evidence and on going debate may have degenerated into what Danko would describe as looking like a blog. I intend to reorganise a bit as a template for other to improve further. Persephone19 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made quite extensive changes particularly to the 'quantum evidence' and 'on going debate' sections which I have merged. Perhaps you can make suggestion or amend this, particularly with reference to the segregation of established science and more speculative proposals. Persephone19 (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In all that I forgot to do anything about the references. I have now pruned the gamma synchrony recently by three. With Bernroider someone had put in 'citations needed' next to 'MacKinnon group' because they hadn't looked down to the references a few lines on at the end of the para, so you can't please everyone. I agree that MacKinnon etc. probably had no notion of quantum consciousness, but this does at least leave them free of any suggestion of bias. Persephone19 (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The section lacks any reliable and independent secondary sources to establish due weight. I did see the references but they don't seem to back up that Bernroider uses their work, I checked one and I saw no mention of Bernroider.IRWolfie- (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised that you were expecting to find a reference to Bernroider in the Mackinnon papers. Danko remarked particularly that MacKinnon was not writing with reference to quantum consciousness ideas. MacKinnon is simply Bernroider's reference for his description of the K+ channel. You would like to discuss and reference independent discussion. So would I, but I can find none. If you can find some, I am happy to read it, and add a para to the existing material, critical of Bernroider of otherwise. We should bear in mind that there is not much peer reviewed or academic press material on this subject, and much of what there is deals with Penrose/Hameroff. In addition the boiler plate on the face of the article should not say that there are references connected to the author. That is easily seen to be factually untrue and should not be prominently displayed on the front of the article. It is clear that the only references are to two papers by Bernroider himself and the quite unconnected MacKinno work. Persephone19 (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Neuroquantology does not appear to be a reliable source, I suggest a different more reliable source is used. The section appears undue with regard to presumably better sourced other sections. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the section. One unreliable and primary source appears to be the real basis for the entire section, this is completely undue. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad Style

Quote from the article: "These proposals do not appear to have generated discussion at a peer-reviewed or academic press level, meaning that primary sources are the only reliable material available."... I think that's a very long-winded way of saying that few researchers found the field unworthy of their time... it also means the article is probably giving undue weight to these studies. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I've already highlighted that it was the definition of undue material but he re-inserted it again anyway. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, I am afraid that Persephone19 seems very eager to tell the world about Quantum mind theory... a scientific endeavour so fringe that physicists can barely be bothered to review it's most noteworthy papers! I'd rather not engage in a revert war but I'd be happy to escalate this if the vandalism continues. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

See new references for Stapp. Discussions of his work by physicists, Abner Shimony, Matthew Donald and Harold Atmanspacher (this time not in an encyclopedia). Persephone19 (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I had a scan through some of the block of (8) references linked to at the end of the section. It's not clear that any of these are directly relevant to the previous paragraph. I'm no wikilawyer, but I get the impression that this style of editing goes against the rules because the links do not seem to be making the same point as the editor. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you are edit warring for the insertion I am taking this to ANI. WP:BRD requires you to talk further changes through on the talk page but you keep re-inserting the content without discussion. I have asked you repeatedly to get consensus first before you insert the text. The references added are also of a poor nature, with 2 being non-peer reviewed and self published, also the nature paper you added doesn't even mention Bernoider and it does not verify the text you think it does. Do you have a conflict of interest which you would like to disclose? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Persephone what are you doing? Stop inserting the content without consensus or discussion. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Quantum_mind_discussion which I already linked you to. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I second this - please revert out your most recent edits. This is supposed to be a community driven proces! --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted the re addition, again, of this stuff, this has to stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Persephone19, you are not making any friends here! Please do not remove the tags from the top of the article again... at least until we have resolved this dispute. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've spent two months trying to resolve this with you. This article was put together in conjunction with editors who were not particularly keen on quantum consciousness theories, but were fair minded enough to agree a reasonable and neutral exposition of the subject. I have repeatedly asked you to make suggestions, but you are only interested in deleting the work of reputable scientists and thus degrading and unbalancing a Wikipedia article. If you want to improve the article make some positive suggestions. Otherwise I can only assume that you are trying to promote some personal faith statement that has no place on Wikipedia. Persephone19 (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have worked so hard, but, that is hardly the point. There is no consensus to add the material. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is a consensus NOT to add the material. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I was being diplomatic.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what was agreed in the past, the material added is undue WP:FRINGE, is not representative of the field and contains original research and original synthesis, consensus has determined that it should be removed, and thus it should be removed. It unbalances the article by including it, not by removing it. Stop re-inserting the material against consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Wolfie, your reply to the new Stapp references raises the question of whether you would accept anything as a reference. You will apparently only except a secondary reference, but now it seems the secondary reference has to exactly paraphrase Stapp. Have you ever considered what the point of all these references is?

Three boiler plates makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. On further consideration a second boiler plate is probably justified, because removal of Stapp and others is a gross unbalancing towards the notion that its all about Hameroff. Further to this the article is well behind the curve on the last five years in quantum biology and what this implies for the much-hyped Tegmark paper. Perhaps I should insert something to bring this up to date.

Incidentally I see the abscence of Stapp is being picked up on facebook as in:

"Leading scientist disappears: A quick look up on Wikipedia's usually useful account of different quantum mind theorists shows no mention of leading theorist Henry Stapp. Can anyone account for his disappearance?"

The synthesis and original research claims are simply false. You claimed that my contribution a paraphrase of the scienntist. Original research would be my own work, which you have failed to demonstrate as existing. Synthesis would be my merger of two scientist which again does not exist. If you do not grasp these simple notions why do you insist on editing the article.

You and your friends constantly bleat about fringe --- fringe --- fringe obsessively, although its a mantra you don't understand. Words have to be understood in their context. Fringe is theories up against solid scientific evidence. In consciousness theory there is no scientific evidence for any particular version. Many even in the scientific community would think that the notion that a computer could suddenly flip into consciousness (the dominant theory until recently) was weird and fringe, and the new version that one needs to move and have viscera to be conscious might be equaly bizarre. Fringe and very fringe have no meaning here, and its futile to go on chanting them. Persephone19 (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You admitted the original research in your own words: "These proposals do not appear to have generated discussion at a peer-reviewed or academic press level, meaning that primary sources are the only reliable material available", you then created an original synthesis to the MacKinnon papers. This makes it unsuitable for wikipedia. You've heard this all before but you refuse to accept it, others agree, the consensus is against it, there is nothing further to be said except: Stop re-inserting material when clearly consensus is against inclusion. Your mention of what some random person said on facebook is, to be quite frank, truly bizarre. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There is consensus to NOT have this stuff in the article, please self revert. This is getting ridiculous. Oh and what you or I see on Facebook is completely and utterly irrelevant. You should read WP:FRINGE WP:CONSENSUS WP:UNDUE and frankly just about every other policy we have. If you don't think it is fringe perhaps see what the folks at the Fringetheory noticeboard think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked for the next day or so. Hopefully the edit warring of this material will now cease. I think the article still has other substantial issues which I hope to get through in due course. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Single electron consciousness and Gustav Bernroider sections

What is a problem with these sections? Removal of section dedicated to really special hypotheses is a destructive editing. Please, change the structure of page but not to remove information that might be interesting for many people.

Page must provide a review of all existing ideas, not only those personally liked by the users — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.88.0.104 (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources establish due weight, A section based off a single primary source appears to be WP:OR. Are you the editor Persephone19? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't know who is he. "Reliable source" is an unclear term when we talk about hypotheses none of which is verified. All quantum theories of consciousness are highly controversial. Therefore, page must be a review of existing hypotheses, not verified theories. Therefore, I don't know why Hameroff should be more important than Bernroider. Just because he is more famous? But page is not a hall of fame. And if it must be based on "serious peer-review sources", then Hameroff and Penrose are also not very welcomed there. You must understand that academic society consider quantum consciousness as marginal concept, and only personal authority of Penrose in OTHER fields hepled him to became popular in quantum mind. Therefore, the only way for thuth to be found is to give readers freedom to choose their personal viewpoint after reading a lot of alternatives. And single-electron hypothesis, in particular, has a long history in philosophy. Similar ideas was shared by Leibnitz. And Tsiolkovsky is a significant thinker too. Your personal disagreement with these idea is not a good reason to remove them. In fact, destructive activity in this page made it highly incomplete. A lot of theories are not mentioned. Single particle, Bernroider, Frohlich etc. That's bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.88.0.104 (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We would be giving undue weight to these ideas. They should not be in the article. If we can find better sources perhaps. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Originality of the research is hard to verify. I never saw this hypothesis in such form before. Argonov's paper seems to be original. However, if you know more original work, insert in in the section. And this would improve it. Anyway, removal is a bad choice. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia encouraging constructive editing. Simple removing of section highly disencourages users from whiting anything in the future. Understand it if you are real enthusiast of wiki ideas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.88.0.104 (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So you think that Chalmers' paper archive is not a reliable source? 93.88.0.104 (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Alexey

I'm sorry, is there a reference by a Chalmers in the recently removed section? If so, I missed it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarification, Chalmers's archive is http://consc.net/online -- it includes links to a few hundred papers on various aspects of consciousness, by many authors. Looie496 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There were at least two authors mentioned in the Section, one of which has a page. There you may easily to read his works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.88.0.104 (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Many of the references in the text are primary. Many of the references do not actually verify the text. I suggest people check them thoroughly. For example, the reference given for the text about Herbert Frohlich did not mention Herbert Frohlich. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing Debate Section is missing?

"This position and other research seen as related to quantum coherence in organisms is discussed in the 'Ongoing Debate' section at the end of this article."

What section? 87.112.145.119 (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hagelin

The lead refers to John Hagelin. Hagelin has indeed speculated that consciousness and the unified field are one and the same. But to my knowledge, he has never spoken or written about the quantum mind, nor does the source cited use that term. As I understand it, the quantum mind hypothesis looks for quantum phenomena in the brain. The source makes no mention of the brain. Hagelin is a theoretical physicist and doesn't talk about quantum phenomena in the brain. This book by Woit is used as a source in the Hagelin article, but it's not clear why it's used in this article. TimidGuy (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of original research in the aticle, be bold. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I just removed the Woit content but didn't see this discussion before I did. Fortunately, there seem to be others who feel there is a lot of OR in this article including the Woit content. It seems to me that the OR comes out of content that is something like Quantum mind but in fact isn' t the same or quite the same. We can't make connections that don't exist in the sources; to do so is OR. As TG notes above, Woit does not discuss Quantum mind in reference to Hagelin, and I've never seen sources in which Hagelin himself uses this term.(olive (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC))

Most of the sources in the article are primary, the Penrose section is completely primary, I think some material is due though but the sourcing is terrible. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

How about a source such as this?[2] It seems to give a broad overview. TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Neuroquantology is not a reliable journal for wikipedia and has a lot of dubious content. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP related OR re-inserted on falsification

Sopher99 restored my removal of what appears to be OR here, with the text The presenter falsifies tegmarks conclusions at 18:30-35:00 [3], unless the source mentions Tegmark by name this is OR, unless an independent reliable source says it falsified Tegmark's conclusions, it is undue and a potential BLP violation: Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Also quantum-mind is self published and not a reliable source. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Topics

Why does this article start with all the arguments against the Quantum mind theory? --WTF --76.197.3.144 (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that, because the premise of quantum mind is not widely accepted among those in the relevant fields of study, it was deemed appropriate to inform the reader that very strong criticism of the theory exists. If anything, this article is a bit soft on quantum consciousness; making it rather unclear just how little respect the idea has in the scientific community.--Amsci (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing should be tossed out. This entry used to be pretty good, but is now best regarded (at the risk of being indelicate) as a load of shit.

One major improvement would be to date, and present in chronological order, the different theories. 128.54.254.180 (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I might agree with the above, too much opinion dressed up as fact.

The paragraph beginning 'Orch OR is no longer considered a good candidate for a quantum source of consciousness.' is total rubbish. Quantum decoherence has been found to be maintained in temperatures well above room temperatures in biological tissue as it plays a fundamental part in photosynthesis (as reported in New Scientist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.166.95 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hameroff addresses Reimers's criticism in this video, I'm not qualified to judge how valid said answer is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s If nobody objects, I would remove the "no longer" paragraph and add something on the line of: "Hameroff however contested their results" with link to his lecture. Ngherappa (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Henry Stapp

Please see WP:BLP about BLP issues. Also the section is based on a single primary source, this does not establish any due weight for inclusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have re-examined Wikipedia guidance. I cannot find any requirement for secondary sources. If you think this exists could you point out where it is. Further I cannot understand the reference to BLP. We are not writing a biography, and even if we were the piece does not seem to violate the guidance. The caution on primary sources appears to refer to traffic violations etc, which is hardly relevant here. You also refer to Neuroquantology, but I am not sure why. It is not a reference we were discussing in relation to either Bernroider or Stapp. Incidentally there is a Wikipedia article on Henry Stapp so it seems a bit high handed to delete him from another article. Wikipedia asks editors to discuss things on the talk page, rathet than go for massive deletion, and perhaps we could aim to follow this. Persephone19 (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP does not just apply to biographies. A wikipedia article on the individual does not give due weight for this article. Also wikipedia does encourage editors make large changes, please see WP:BOLD. The sections are completely undersourced with respect to the other sections and they are based only on primary sources. You've inserted a whole section based on one source. See WP:UNDUE. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have amended the article in several places to strengthen neutrality. The first para introduces a bit about most scientists etc. rejecting the idea, mentions Tegmark which is the nearest existing work to a falsification of quantum consciousness. I have also moved Chalmers into this first section. He argues against quantum consciousness, so should not really be listed as one of the proponents of the idea.

It is further indicated that, Bohm, Stapp and QBD are not associated with any tests that could falsify them. Note that Penrose's objective reduction is being tested and Guerreschi et al are proposing tests that could falsify the proposition of entanglement in protein, which could falsify both Hameroff and Bernroider, but not the others.

Coming on to the question of undue weight, the Wikipedia template is not entirely helpful in this respect. When we look at the flat v. round Earth proposals, a small minority on one side face a monolithic consensus of both lay and scientific opinion on the other.

With quantum consciousness it's a case of one side of the equation being marble and the other side straw. Quantum consciousness proponents are assuredly a tiny minority, but the rest are anything but a consensus. If you were to look at human opinion generally, including the adherents of major religions, there would probably be a consensus in favour of dualism, i.e. a separate spirit/soul stuff. On these terms mainstream consciousness studies based ultimately on classical physics could itself be classed as fringe.

Even within the scientific community there appears no great consensus. The subject was not regarded as scientific until about 25 years ago, and it still seems acceptable to have no particular opinion. Neuroscientists have been warned off this patch, and somebody can still be described as a good neuroscientist because he doesn't get involved with consciousness. In fact, the field is dominated by philosophers and psychologist who pay limited attention to new developments in neuroscience or biology.

It is fair to say that the proponents of consciousness theories based on classical physics far out number those based on quantum physics. But that's about the extent of their consensus. There appear to be at least ten different mainstream theories of consciousness, which have not that much in common. Functionalism is/was the dominant view, but is being challenged by 'embodiment' ideas. A brain or computer is not conscious by itself, but becomes so with the res extensa of a body/physical movement and touch.

References and proposed deletion of mainstream consciousness theories: You criticise the lack of secondary references for Stapp and Bernroider. The same looks to apply to the mainstream people. Everybody writes up their own theory but third parties only discuss it in non-academic books or popular science magazines. Gerald Edelman is well regarded as a consciousness theorists, but in the consciousness section of his Wikipedia article there is only one reference which is to his own book. The same goes for consciousness theorist Max Velmans. If we have to lose Stapp and Bernroider, I am going to propose deletion of the Edelman consciousness section and the entire Velmans article, which only references Velmans own papers and lectures. Persephone19 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Good news. A secondary reference for Stapp. Philosopher, David Bourget, criticises his version of quantum consciousness in the Journal of Consciousness Studies. Less good is that other consciousness luminaries could merit deletion or partial deletion under a secondary reference rule, for instance David Chalmers, Daniel Dennett, Patricia Churchland and Francisco Varela. Propose removal of the unfortunate Stapp's boiler plate. Persephone19 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems very undue for the amount of content WP:UNDUE. Issues with other articles is not relevant to this article. You should not base any action you take on another article based on what we do on this article i.e do whatever you feel is best for the wiki in these other articles whilst not breaking policies. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the mention of Bernoider, in the article was the statement that "These proposals do not appear to have generated discussion at a peer-reviewed or academic press level, meaning that primary sources are the only reliable material available" is exactly the sort of thing which should not be mentioned in a wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not the place for Original Research WP:OR to decide what should be included. Instead we rely on secondary and independent sources to establish due weight. (See WP:DUE also) IRWolfie- (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your claims about Wikipedia guidance are entirely false. Original research refers to the work/ideas of the editor or person writing the article. This is not the case. The article refers to the published work of Bernroider, an academically affiliated scientist, who has no known role in creating this article.

I have already demonstrated to you that the demand for secondary references is invalid. I does not come in Wikipedia guidance, nor does it come in Wikipedia practise. The articles mentioned are on figures that are regarded as important in consciousness studies also rely entirely on primary sources. Such articles are directly comparable to material on the theorists mentioned here. The same rules need to apply across Wikipedia articles. If Bernroider goes, Patricia Churchland etc. etc. will have to go, and I will copy your material as justification for these numerous deletions. If the policy applies here, it applies there and would therefore not be a breach of policy.

Also you copy again the material about undue weight, but still do not explain why there is undue weight. The article appears to make quite clear that the majority of scientists etc. are opposed and their opinions are quoted at some length and references to their material given. The sections on the individual theories appear to my mind neutral giving where possible objections and possible falsification. If anything the move to exclude some theorists is itself biasing the article. A frequent misrepresentation in popular writing is to refute one theorist (usually Hameroff) and claim to have dealt with the whole subject. Persephone19 (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:UNDUE. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.. Quoting from WP:PRIMARY: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.. Wikipedia policy: Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources. Policy is not negotiable. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary to keep on quoting the WP material to me. Not only have I been familiar with it for a long time, but I have just now re-read it carefully. The position on primary sources is clear as quoted below:-

'Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care ----- . A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.'

You yourself made it a criticism of the article that it appeared to be a paraphrase of Bernroider, but that is exactly what is called for by Wikipedia. As you rightly say above, policy is not negotiable.

You have not really come back to me on the undue weight problem. We are both well aware that the quote you give above minority positions refers to absurd or bizarre theories such as Paul MaCartney being replaced by a look-alike clone in 1966, clearly running in the face of a massive amount of contrary evidence. Quantum mind theory is a minority view but not of that kind. It has been supported by two of the most prominent minds of recent decades plus a number of other senior phyicists. Its opponents do not possess substantial evidence. For the most part they are a self-appointed clacque of philosophers and psychologists known only to perhaps a few thousand people such as myself. It's not possible to provide a single piece of positive scientific evidence that consciousness can be derived from classical/macroscopic physics. It's a pious hope, based admittedly on the past successes of such physics.

Further to this I refer to a quote for the 'due and undue weight' section, para 2:-

'In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space.'

The guidance for dispute resolution asks for positive suggestions to improve articles. I accept that the majority view point should be made clear. I thought I had strengthened it considerable, but am very happy to insert more relevant material, with the caveat that it does not over balance in the opposite direction and become a private reflectanvce on 'why I know quantum mind is pseudoscience'. Persephone19 (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring the main point, it is against policy to base material solely on primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not what Wikipedia says. As above a straight forward description or in other words paraphrase is allowed. Application of your reading of the policy could cause substantial problems for the coverage of consciousness studies on Wikipedia.

I suggest compromise in respect of Bernroider. Leave the caveat boiler plate against Bernroider, since its certainly true to say that it is a primary source.

That still leaves the question of the claimed 'undue weight' for the article as a whole. If you want to improve the quality of the article I'm open to suggestions on the balance. However, I don't think this involves cutting people out, if anything there are more theorists out there that should be mentioned. Persephone19 (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

These are not my words they are policy (I am quoting): do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources WP:PRIMARY. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You have not come back to me relative to the claim of undue weight. I take it that you are now happy with the overall balance of the article, and we can remove those boiler plates. Persephone19 (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh? I was waiting for you to respond before moving further. The Henry Stapp section and the mention of Bernoider are both undue.IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the last reply. Does the over due comment relate to Stapp and Bernroider. If so how do they relate to the undue weight? Comment on most of the theorists involved would seemed to improve the balance rather than a biased emphasis on finding fault with Hameroff.

Incidentally I have put a query on Patricia Churchands philosophy section re: verification to see what people think, and someone ---? you --- has put a query on Edelman's consciousness section. Potentially this approach could extend far and wide across Wikipedia. Persephone19 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

They are fringe because they are badly sourced and they are undue with respect to other content in the article already. Some of it is pure original research on your part. For example the Guerreschi paper does not mention Bernroider at all. See WP:PRIMARY WP:UNDUE and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC - Henry Stapp and Gustav Bernroider

Is the section on Henry Stapp and Gustav Bernroider undue and should they be removed. The Henry Stapp section has a single secondary reference whilst the mention of Gustav Bernroider is purely through primary sources. For the Bernroider section it had this phrase: These proposals do not appear to have generated discussion at a peer-reviewed or academic press level, meaning that primary sources are the only reliable material available. which appears to be the definition of undue, removal of this content was reverted. Other sections appear to be much better referenced with the opinions of more notable academics on the topic. Should the content be removed? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no original research in this article. If you think there is say what it is. Persephone19 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fringe, as you have pointed out yourself, is a type of minority view, and nothing to do with the number of references, otherwise Tegmark would be fringe which is definitely not the case. Persephone19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC).

There is always going to be a problem for Wikipedia in finding published commentaries that address the relative importance of his work on antibodies, cell adhesion and consciousness. His contributions to all three are important, but there are few scientists who can adequately evaluate the relative importance of Edelman's contributions in these three research domains. Hopefully some day there will be a dozen comprehensive scientific biographies of Edelman, but until then I don't think we can really apply WP:UNDUE to this Wikipedia biographical article. In the absence of a published corpus of Edelman biographies, a good starting point would be to perform an analysis of how frequently Edelman's papers in these three subject areas have been cited by other scientists, but if we tried doing that we would probably be condemned for our original research. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Worth considering Schmidt's comment re:Edelman, a mainstream commentator on consciousness. He's running up against the same problem. The net effect of implementing suggested policy could be to exclude Wikipedia readers from the ongoing scientific/academic debate on consciousness. Persephone19 (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

On wikipedia we do not formulate opinions and views etc that are not expressed already in reliable secondary sources. To do otherwise is to engage in original research and original synthesis. We are discussing this article, Edelman is not discussed in this article and so he is irrelevant to the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with that policy statement. I have not formulated any opinion or view, and have therefore not engaged in any original research or synthesis. I have in your own words paraphrased Bernroider's paper. If you can find any research that is my work as distinct from Bernroider, Stapp or any other theorist please quite it verbatim so that it can be deal with it. Persephone19 (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Weight is established through reliable secondary sources. If secondary sources do not yet mention Stapp or other researchers, we should not either. Yobol (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A secondary source has been provided for Stapp. Persephone19 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added more references for MacKinnon group's work. There was an error in the first reference. Volume 14 should read volume 414. Original criticisms was that we didn't need so many references but here they are. Persephone19 (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

MacKinnon doesn't mention Bernoider so his work is irrelevant to the issues. Adding more references by MacKinnon doesn't help the issue. The references do not verify the text you claim they do, i.e that Bernroider and Roy draw on the work of the MacKinnon group relative to the potassium (K+) channel. Since there is no mention of Bernroider in the references it is not from the reference given that you verify the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The source citing the section on Stapp in the article doesn't even mention his name. Am I missing something? Yobol (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Stapp is mentioned both in the title of the paper and the first line of the abstract, which I quote here:-

'Quantum Leaps in Philosophy of Mind: A Critique of Stapp's Theory'

Abstract: 'The quantum mechanical theory of consciousness and freewill offered by Stapp (1993;1995;2000;2004)is exposed and clarified. ...... Stapp's separate accounts of consciousness and freewill are incompatible ....'

The full address is ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2004/0000001/00000012/art0002

If this should give any problem go to www.imprint.co.uk/cs.html and then follow the ingenta connect link and scroll down to 2004. This is the Journal of Consciousness Studies site. Persephone19 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We have a further secondary reference for Stapp. This is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 edition), where Harald Atmanspacher writes on 'Quantum Approaches to Consciousness'. Section 4.2 of this lengthy entry is entitled 'Stapp: Quantum State Reductions and Conscious Acts', and extends to two and a half dense and learned pages. It would seem strange if Stapp could appear in one encyclopedia but not another. Persephone19 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This material is clearly WP:Fringe and barely [[WP:N] - vote to remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs) 13:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal clearly unjustified as this abides by the rules for minority theories. Persephone19 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

These mentions are clearly more undue than the mentions of Roger Penrose and David Bohm. Within a fringe topic you can also have views that are also at the fringes of the topic. This is such a case. Stapp is not a promiment figure within the Quantum mind movement and as such is undue. Bernroider especially so as you have already admitted in the article content (that only primary sources exist). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

At least with Stapp you need to explain the Stanford Encyclopedia reference. Persephone19 (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Stanford Ency ref is a tertiary source (like wikipedia), here is wikipedia policy on the matter: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources WP:TERTIARY. You are inappropriately using a tertiary source where secondary sources should be used. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Treating a well known phycist as a tertiary is doubtful

Further to that your fringe and more fringe rule seem to be a rule invention of your own not related to any Wikipedia guidance. The real point is that removal of other theorist is itself an unweighting of the article, perpetuating the false impression of sloppy popular writing that only Hameroff needs to be discussed. Persephone19 (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an encylopedia, by definition it is a tertiary source. I suggest you read the link I gave you to WP:TERTIARY. Let me quote the first line of tertiary sources since you clearly haven't read it: Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias No reliable secondary source mentions Bernroider and so it is undue. Only primary sources mention Bernoider so it is undue whichever way you spin it. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the content, it is quite clear this material is unsuitable and the two independent comments have agreed. I suggest you get consensus before you try to reinsert the material. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not really valid to describe Atmanspracher's work as compendia simply because it's in an encyclopedia. If you read it, it is clearly presented as the view of a prominent physcicist.

You now also want to alter the lead section, but do not given any help with this. I have already weighted this more towards the negative by giving prominence to Chalmers and other changes.

Unfortunately I am not impressed by the 'independent' comments. They do not give any reasons or evidence and one at least seems to be some sort of dead user name. Persephone19 (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Persephone19, I'd urge you to re-consider IRWolfie's advice. Most of the content you've added recently seems to be very fringe in nature. I'd suggest that if you really feel that this information belongs in WP it might be more appropriate to include the text on the biography pages of the physicists. It seems to me that your most recent edits reflect the views of those individual researchers rather than the consensus of mosty researchers in this field. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This stuff is clearly fringe, and frankly does not merit inclusion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not that the Stapp section is unrefertenced but it is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sperxios (talk • contribs) 09:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Tegmark

I've promoted Criticism by Tegmark to a section, so that is no longer a subsection of quantum mind approaches. (Peter Ells (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC))

Tegmark refuted by research post 2007. Section lacks balance.Datafile28 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Fringes of Science

I've amassed a rather large collection of resources on the quantum mind, some mainstream (Penrose), others more fringe (Robert Jahn, parapsychology, etc). I'm cannot say with any definiteness what exactly in this list is or is not acceptable science for this article, but I leave these resources here so we can have a friendly debate and incorporate the acceptable ones at a later date.

Rupert Sheldrake at GoogleTechTalks on nonlocal cognition as an evolutionary mechanism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research

http://vimeo.com/4359545

"Science and the taboo of psi" (GoogleTechTalks, Dean Radin)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

"Entangled Minds and Beyond" (Scienceandnonduality, Dean Radin)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKuwWBYHQ50

Global Consciousness Project (PEAR offshoot, Radin was a member)

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

How the Hippies Saved Physics (all about QM, consciousness, ESP, mysticism, etc.)

http://www.hippiessavedphysics.com/

My website (more resources all about consciousness studies, quantum biology, etc.; I'll try to compile some useful subsections for this article soon): http://poetsandengineers.com/blog/

Neuroscience325 (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead: "classical physics is false"

Re this diff. Although we can source the statement "classical physics is false" [4], [5] I'm not sure the rest of the material that was desired to be inserted strictly summarizes what's in the sources, or is an editor's own interpretation of it. Opinions? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

What "Future Kick" describes as "insane unsourced nonsense" (sic) is of course a truism. Critics of quantum mind aren't scientifically illiterate. The rest of the sentence ["...but proponents and critics of quantum mind disagree over whether a classical approximation to quantum mechanics can explain the phenomenal properties of the mind-brain"] wasn't intended to insert an editorial POV. How can it best be improved? --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"Classical physics is false" is an epistemological tar baby we don't need to get into. The part you've quoted directly above seems like a reasonable paraphrase for a lede. The phrase "for example the phenomenal binding of distributed neuronal feature-processors" assumes too much familiarity with the topic in the reader. Rhoark (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I was one of the editors that reverted this statement. Classical physics is an approximation. That does not make it false. I like the phrase "epistemological tar baby". ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Classical physics is false -- both its laws and its ontology. For many purposes, we may treat an approximation of classical physics as though it were true. This is a distinct statement. None of this entails that the mind-brain is a quantum computer.--Davidcpearce (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources you have provided do say "classical physics is false" but if you look at those statements in context you see that they appreciate that it provides an approximation and neither claims that "quantum mechanics is true". ~Kvng (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The more material point here is that classical physics does not require or produce consciousness, which prompts consciousness researchers to look elsewhere. Persephone19 (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Godel, Bringsjord & Xiao

The reference to Bringsjord & Xiao's paper could be elucidated a bit more. The refutation of Penrose's argument is only seen as applying to 'Strong AI' under which not only is all thinking computation but consciousness is evoked only by carrying out appropriate computations. It does not apply to 'Weak AI' in which while any physical action can be computationally simulated this does not evoke awareness. At the end of the paper, Bringsjord as distinct from Xiao says he is in 'complete and utter agreement' with Penrose about the possibility of deriving the denial of Strong AI from Godel. Persephone19 (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Unification

Sternglass ensemble. See World Record--TheLastWordSword (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Original Research?

There are several statements in this article that read strongly like original research, especially given the frequent citations of primary sources such as published papers. This one about David Bohm strikes me as particularly problematic:

"A major weakness to Bohm's hypothesis is verification. In his writings, Bohm never proposed any specific means by which the propositions could be tested or falsified, nor a neural mechanism through which his "implicate order" could emerge in a way relevant to consciousness."

...citing Bohm's book as its source, presumably by its omission of said proposal. There are other examples of course, but this one seems like the most blatant. AveVeritas (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that particular statement is OR -- I'm pretty confident it can be supported by reputable published sources. But I do agree that it isn't supported by the source that is cited. The worst possible solution here, though, would be to edit the article in a way that gives the impression that "quantum mind" is mainstream science. It is, in wiki-speak, a fringe theory, and this article needs to clearly say so. Looie496 (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good point, AveVeritas. Such assertions should be sourced. TimidGuy (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity in section about Bohm’s hypothesis

Regarding the section on David Bohm’’s hypothesis, I’m stuck on the following passage. I’ve read it over several times and cannot quIte grasp its meaning:

“He stated these studies show that young children have to learn about time and space not because they are part of the explicate order; rather, they have a 'hard-wired' understanding of movement because it is part of the implicate order. He compared this 'hard-wiring' to Chomsky's theory that grammar is ‘hard-wired’ into young human brains.”

Firstly, I find the first sentence to be ambiguous: “…not because they are part of the explicate order;…” What does “they” refer to, young children or time and space? I am assuming the latter which brings me to question two below.

Secondly, in: “Young children have to learn about time and space not because they are part of the explicate order; rather, they have a ‘hard-wired’ understanding of movement because it is part of the implicate order.” I find this incoherent. What exactly does this mean? Young children are “hard-wired” to understand movement. Why does their being “hard-wired” to understand movement apparently necessitate them having to learn about time and space?

Finally, has anyone ever commented on the seeming correlation between Bohm’s hypothesis as stated here and Eastern metaphysical thought? In the latter, the underlying, eternally and timelessly existing foundation of reality which cannot be further sublated is consciousness (“Brahman” in Advaita Vedanta terminology) and matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness rather than visa versa which is the intuitive Western viewpoint? Bohm seems to have stated (see his example of music in the preceding paragraph) that the perception of movement is caused by the mind being able to hold onto the past while experiencing the present (which apparently gives rise to a sense of movement/change by comparison), which seems to reasonably answer the question as to why we experience (at least the illusion of) movement notwithstanding the static block universe which seems to be implied by Einstein’s relativity; i.e., the eternalism theory of time which both Minkowski and Einstein held to. Here is an interesting Zen story:

Two monks were watching a flag blowing in the wind. One argued that in reality the flag was moving, while the other argued it was the wind. The Zen master happened by and settled the argument with: “Mind moves.”

This argument in Western philosophy harkens back to Parmenides and Zeno. Indeed, some derisively referred to Einstein as “Dr. Parmenides.”HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Category

The pseudoscience cateogry is totally inappropriate here and with all the problems and bias in this article, there is no consensus for its inclusion. Sigilian (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It would also be helpful to correct the various problems of bias and undue weight in this article before tacking on controversial categories in order to push a certain POV. Considering that this is not a well known or well addressed topic, and is highly theoretical, there is no general scientific consensus proclaiming quantum mind as a pseudoscience. Sigilian (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is almost Platonically pseudoscience. Let's see if others weigh in, in the meantime, please no more reverts. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Brought it up at WP:FTN so we can get some more opinions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it pseudoscience, more fringe science. It's not inherently unscientific, just that some of the proposals have been falsified, while others are speculative. None have much acceptance, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable sources calling quantum mind (as its described in this article) a pseudoscience. However some interpretations of it, such as Quantum mysticism are characterized as pseudoscience. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine line there but I think you are both right. Unless we get a lot of others saying to keep it I figure we can remove the category. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Tough one. just because an article is in a category doesn't necessarily mean that the article's subject is wholly contained by the category. However, it does lend a certain demarcation when it is so presented. The bigger problem is that there isn't much in the way of independent sources on quantum mind proposals that are looking at the scientific plausibility of the claims who aren't all but point-blank declaring the subject to be pseudoscientific. Basically, the closest you have to serious supporters are those of the likes of David Chalmers, and while their proposals are fraught, they're also convincing enough to attract some thinkers who aren't exactly lightweights to take them seriously. I'm not so much neutral on the matter as I'm concerned that removing the category is just a salvo in this fight rather than an honest appraisal of how the discussion is happening. Essentially the detractors are saying that quantum mind is pseudoscience, though perhaps they are a bit more magnanimous. jps (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

'Cept like the lede says... Chalmers doesn't support quantum mind proposals.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 05:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's right. Though I think it's more of a case of not agreeing that it's the correct answer rather than proper pseudoscience. He takes it too seriously because he thinks the hard problem of consciousness is meaningful. jps (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of the topic at WP:FTN and it's been three years now, so I assume nothing's been decided. I only see evidence of scientific proposals being falsified and no proponents of the idea within the neurophysiology field, so I vote for retaining the category. Cutelyaware (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please can someone update the Chalmers section of this article

This is an accurate representation of what Chalmers said in 1996. However in his 2004 'Consciousness and its Place in Nature', he is less sympathetic to his earlier epiphenomenalism, and he admits a possible place for quantum mechanics in an interactionist version of Dualism. (eg p31): "quantum mechanics appears to be perfectly compatible with such an interpretation. In fact, one might argue that if one was to design elegant laws of physics that allow a role for the conscious mind, one could not do much better than the bipartite dynamics of standard quantum mechanics".

and also on the same page:

"There is some irony in the fact that philosophers reject interactionism on largely physical grounds [26] (it is incompatible with physical theory), while physicists reject an interactionist interpretation of quantum mechanics on largely philosophical grounds (it is dualistic)"

[26] "I have been as guilty of this as anyone..."

I'm afraid that I don't have the technical skills to do this edit proficiently. But I hope someone with the requisite ability would agree that without this addition, this page misrepresents the man in not acknowledging that he changed his mind on this issue, that they might thereby take it upon themself to make the necessary additions or changes.

The article is available on Chalmers' page here: http://consc.net/papers/nature.pdf

and google lists over 500 citations.

2001:7D0:8401:2C80:EC1F:C42E:4284:EDAD (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)JonathanJuel-Beer

2018edit

I just did a major edit of the Criticism section. I hope people like it. I wanted to make it clear that the ideas of the quantum mind theories are being used for the purposes of promoting pseudoscience. The theories themselves can and should be kept for thoughtful consideration, even though there is no experimental evidence for them. But if there is a disagreement with this approach to the page, please let me know what the problem is, rather than just reverting it to the previous version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrea6 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to specify that it's pseudoscience (per WP:PSCI). Thanks for working on this, —PaleoNeonate – 03:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Copied from Quantum Computing page

This section was copied to the Quantum Mind page from the Quantum Computing page on 1 Feb 2018 by user: wcrea6:

Quantum computing is computing using quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as superposition and entanglement. A quantum computer is a device that performs quantum computing. They are different from binary digital electronic computers based on transistors. Whereas common digital computing requires that the data be encoded into binary digits (bits), each of which is always in one of two definite states (0 or 1), quantum computation uses quantum bits, which can be in superpositions of states. One of the greatest challenges is controlling or removing quantum decoherence. This usually means isolating the system from its environment as interactions with the external world cause the system to decohere. Currently, some quantum computers require their qubits to be cooled to 20 millikelvins in order to prevent significant decoherence. As a result, time consuming tasks may render some quantum algorithms inoperable, as maintaining the state of qubits for a long enough duration will eventually corrupt the superpositions.

Copied from Schrodinger's cat page

The following section was copied to the Quantum Mind page from the Schrodinger's cat page on 4 Feb 2018 by user: wcrea6:

Erwin Schrödinger described how one could, in principle, create entanglement of a large-scale system by making it dependent on an elementary particle in a superposition. He proposed a scenario with a cat in a locked steel chamber, wherein the cat's life or death depended on the state of a radioactive atom, whether it had decayed and emitted radiation or not. According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the state has been observed. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics. However, since Schrödinger's time, other interpretations of the mathematics of quantum mechanics have been advanced by physicists, some of which regard the "alive and dead" cat superposition as quite real.

Copied from Quantum Enganglement page

The following section was copied to Quantum Mind from Quantum Entanglement on 9 Feb 2018 by user: wcrea6:

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon which occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the other(s), even when the particles are separated by a large distance—instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole. Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, and polarization, performed on entangled particles are found to be correlated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrea6 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Lead paragraph removal

Here is the challenged material (diff): "Hypotheses have been proposed about the ways in which quantum effects may be involved in the process of consciousness, but even those who adhere to them admit that they are only hypotheses, and that they may not be provable. It is not yet possible to perform experiments designed to prove the validity of the ideas involved in quantum consciousness." with edit summary: "no such thing exists in the article body". Here are quotes from the body:

• Pearce admits that his ideas are "highly speculative," "counterintuitive," and "incredible."
• These hypotheses of the quantum mind remain hypothetical speculation, as Penrose and Pearce admitted in their discussion.
• The process of testing the hypotheses with experiments is fraught with problems, including conceptual/theoretical, practical, and ethical issues.
• These could demonstrate which type of computer is capable of conscious, intentional thought. But they don't exist yet, and no experimental test has been demonstrated.
• "I don't think the experiments are sensitive enough yet to test many of these specific ideas."

Hence it seemed to me that the sentence is a summary of the body per WP:LEAD. —PaleoNeonate – 23:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not the strongest paragraph, but does summarize the aspects of the body you pointed out. However, the statement "It is not yet possible to perform experiments designed to prove the validity of the ideas involved in quantum consciousness" needs some attribution or to be broken down more specificly. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)