Talk:Quantum mind/Archive 3

Latest updates
The latest research cited on the page is dated 2012. Since 2014-2015 other research has been done on this topic and now we think of a serious correlation between quantum phenomena and our brain, which go beyond the obvious spiritualism that it has always been there when we talked about this, often harming credibility. However, there is now new research, taken up by many scientists, which of course are worth mentioning. Possibly moving the old theories that concern above all philosophy more than science in a paragraph and populate the whole page with the latest scientific research that is being done. Meanwhile, I put a notice on the page as obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.163.106.142 (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

What research are you talking about specifically? A.gee.dizzle (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent relevant work
Can someone please update the page to include a summary of some recent work? It can be summarised as follows.

In a recent paper Yu Feng demonstrates the compatibility between panpsychism (or panprotopsychism) and Everett’s relative-state interpretation of quantum mechanics. With the help of quantum Darwinism, he proposed a hierarchy of co-consciousness relations and claimed that it may solve the combination problem. Comparing with the emergent theory of physical space, Feng suggested that the phenomenal space may emerge from quantum information under the same mechanism, and argued that quantum mechanics resolves any structural mismatch between the mind and the physical brain.

Fyfly88 (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This text is pseudoscientific 'verbal salad'. I have deleted the section on Yu Feng, for not being notable. Danko Georgiev (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Orch OR new evidence 2022
Hello. This is an excellent article and very informative to the reader. New evidence for Orch OR revealed April 2022: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2316408-quantum-experiments-add-weight-to-a-fringe-theory-of-consciousness/

and without paywall here: https://futurism.com/human-consciousness-quantum-physics

The Orchestrated objective reduction page has been updated. I wonder if a summary of that paragraph might belong under the Penrose/Hameroff section or somewhere else in the article.

As the science moves inevitably forward this page may well need a revisit. It is not only Orch OR which continues to gain ground, there is other related research into microtubules and further new evidence of quantum properties https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10068-4 (there is one brief reference to Orch OR)

Example: we have cited NBC's interview with Lawrence Krauss from twelve years ago in the lead "How to spot quantum quackery". He's asked about Orch OR and his reply is guarded: "Quantum mechanics may play a role at some level in the way the brain works..." This is not the quote we have used at the foot of the Penrose Hameroff section but something more negative. The evidence for 'quantum mind' is mounting from all directions I would say. I'm not sure the link to what is indeed quackery should be in the lead in that manner, this is a serious subject that gives rise to nonsense elsewhere. Just to say the reader needs to be clearly made aware of the distinction. Thanks. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Changes made to section, please review.Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge QBD
Let's merge Quantum brain dynamics into Quantum mind. I worked on the QBD article long ago, and even voted against a previous merge proposal, but in the nearly 15 years since then the article has not expanded by a single paragraph (since removing irrelevant filler) and has had no edits beyond rvv and link/category maintenance in 5 years. Honestly, I don't know what I expected when I voted against the merge originally, since it was obvious the theory was dead, but better late than never I suppose. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Penrose and Hameroff section
The section on P & H currently states "In Penrose's first book on consciousness, The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argued that while a formal system cannot prove its own inconsistency, Gödel’s unprovable results are provable by human mathematicians.[15]". While I have not read Penrose's old books, this cannot possibly be his claim. Gödel proves that if a formal system 1) is consistent, and 2) is expressive enough (specifically, can talk about elementary number theory), then it cannot prove its own consistency. If, on the other hand, the system is inconsistent, it can prove anything it can express, including its own consistency. The formulation "Gödel’s unprovable results" confuses Gödel's theorems, which are quite provable, with the consistency statements not provable by certain formal theories. Moreover, "unprovability" is not an absolute notion, but is relative to a fixed formal system. Penrose, being a competent mathematician, surely knows all this. Someone who has read The Emperor's New Mind needs to update the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.2.113.92 (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right, and I agree it seems incredible that Penrose would make such a mistake, but he did. Either he got carried away in his zeal to prove consciousness = non-machine, or he did it on purpose, maybe thinking of it as a white lie or something. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:7DFE:22D7:F594:C9D3 (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

This is used as a metaphor or symbol and it is not a real thing
Please see this video of Richard Dawkins to understand reality of this term -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I happen to think that Penrose's position is complete bollocks, but he knows what quantum mechanics is and what microtubules are. He is not stupid or uninformed. He is very specific in claiming that the quantum physics that constitutes the mind is happening in the microtubules in the neurites of the central nervous system. Not metaphorically.
 * Dawkins is saying that people who don't know what quantum physics is about like involving the term; that is also true, but the current page is focused on people who do know what they are talking about, and nonetheless speculate quite freely about quantum minds. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:7DFE:22D7:F594:C9D3 (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Penrose
In the quote given here, its should be made clear that Penrose is furiously back-pedalling from his much bolder earlier claims. Comparing the two, you can see that he now admits what neuroscientists (as well as quantum physicists capable of understanding the molecular biology jargon) knew all along: even if quantum "stuff" is happening in the microtubules, how are these isolated effects going to coordinate at the level of the mind (i.e., presumably at the level of the whole brain)?

It is very difficult to rule out all as yet unknown effects and mechanisms, but the honest position is that neither Penrose nor anyone else can even remotely imagine how that could happen.

For those of us who are familiar with the niceties of academic discourse, we can spot the weasel words when he states that "there are certain experiments that people are beginning to perform, and various schemes for a modification of quantum mechanics. I don't think the experiments are sensitive enough yet to test many of these specific [ah-hah] ideas. One could imagine experiments that might test these things, but they'd be very hard to perform." But for the general reader, I would like to caution that this is just the learned way of saying: Yeah, well, I don't know, whatever.

So here is the editorial dilemma: when a Nobel prize winner claims to know how the brain works (or at least have an inkling) an encyclopedia should pay attention, right? Yet we also know that he has been slowly retreating from his position, very slowly so as to not lose face. Should the encyclopedia slavishly follow him in this "adiabatic" retreat back into sanity? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:7DFE:22D7:F594:C9D3 (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't "follow" anyone. If the Wikipedia article did happen to portray Penrose's opinion as fact, then that was wrong to begin with. Nobel prizes don't have anything to do with anything here because science does not work the way religion does - Penrose is not the Pope. Nobelists are just the same type of fallible idiot as the rest of us, and Wikipedia never pretended otherwise.
 * If you have reliable sources saying that Penrose has wised up, bring them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You only have to compare his statements in the book with the statement quoted. That was my point: should we stay with what was in the published book, or quote his latest interview on some blog or something? "Following" in that sense. I really do not need your lectures on how science works, Nobelists not being the pope etc.
 * If you cannot see the back-pedalling yourself, that is just too bad. I do know what I am talking about, and do not care much for your tone. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:7DFE:22D7:F594:C9D3 (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course I cannot see any "backpedalling", since you never said what you mean by "the quote given here". Maybe you could be less vague? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)