Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Evidence Corroborates the Quantum Mind

page: 1
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose have put forth a theory that I have supported for some time. This is the Orch OR model of Consciousness. This theory says consciousness is fundamental to the nature of reality at Planck scales. Here's more:


Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' corroborates theory of consciousness

A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness published in Physics of Life Reviews claims that consciousness derives from deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons. The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose. They suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions. The theory, called "orchestrated objective reduction" ('Orch OR'), was first put forward in the mid-1990s by eminent mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, FRS, Mathematical Institute and Wadham College, University of Oxford, and prominent anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, MD, Anesthesiology, Psychology and Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson. They suggested that quantum vibrational computations in microtubules were "orchestrated" ("Orch") by synaptic inputs and memory stored in microtubules, and terminated by Penrose "objective reduction" ('OR'), hence "Orch OR." Microtubules are major components of the cell structural skeleton.

Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain was considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for seemingly delicate quantum processes.. However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules. The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.

After 20 years of skeptical criticism, "the evidence now clearly supports Orch OR," continue Hameroff and Penrose. "Our new paper updates the evidence, clarifies Orch OR quantum bits, or "qubits," as helical pathways in microtubule lattices, rebuts critics, and reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 -- of these, six are confirmed and none refuted."

Lead author Stuart Hameroff concludes, "Orch OR is the most rigorous, comprehensive and successfully-tested theory of consciousness ever put forth. From a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions."


esciencenews.com...

This is a pretty big deal and this is what was predicted by Orch OR. With a Quantum Mind, many of the things labeled paranormal become normal. Things like twin telepathy, psychics, remote viewing, life after death and more. These things can easily be explained with these 3 words, superposition, non locality and entanglement.

Here's a video of Penrose talking about Consciousness:



Here's a video of Hameroff on Through the Wormhole:

vimeo.com...

Here's a very good video about Orch OR:



Here's an article with Hameroff talking about the Quantum Soul.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

At the end of the day, quantum consciousness is just common sense especially when you look at the emerging field of Quantum Biology. You can't say quantum effects might be used for everything from the sense of smell to bird migration but it can't be used for consciousness.

edit on 17-1-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
The assumptions just boggle my mind. I just can't take this hocus pocus, just cause. The reasoning presented isn't enough for my mind. Not saying it isn't so, rather that we still haven't a clue, and are perhaps getting too far ahead of ourselves with the "what ifs". I'm all for these guys spending their lives chasing these notions. If they truly figure some things out, and can explain consciousness without the assumptions, as in... really have a grasp on it, then I'll bow my head in respect. Until then, cool story, bro!



Dr Hameroff told the Science Channel’s Through the Wormhole documentary: “Let’s say the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information within the microtubules is not destroyed, it can’t be destroyed, it just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large”. Robert Lanza would add here that not only does it exist in the universe, it exists perhaps in another universe.


LInk

Sure hope I'm not the only one who caught that huge assumption. Why would they speculate that the quantum information retains it's complexity to hold consciousness as it's distributed and dissipats to the universe? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. Why would it exist in another universe... just cause... it makes them feel good to transcend death via faith?! Oohkay!!



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Seems like we are re-learning information that the ancients knew for millenia. So many old stories, and beliefs are being reinforced through scientific discovery. People think this is new, it is not. I AM glad that it is being shared, and thought upon, regardless of belief.


Pretty sure we are only a few years away from proving that different layers of reality exist. Scratching the surface on so many fronts, just a little more oomph, and we'd be there.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by webedoomed
 



webedoomed
Why would they speculate that the quantum information retains it's complexity to hold consciousness as it's distributed and dissipats to the universe? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. Why would it exist in another universe... just cause... it makes them feel good to transcend death via faith?! Oohkay!!


I guess they think the quantum information is separate from the motion of the microtubules. That is, it isn't the motion of the microtubes that gives consciousness, but the force / energy / whatever that creates the motion, which is consciousness.

Maybe if we think of it like someone is trying to call a dead phone. The caller exists whether or not the phone is able to pick up. Such would be the case for the microtubules when someone is put under anesthesia -- the caller doesn't die, the phone is just put out of order, so to speak -- you are unable to sense anything because your consciousness is not answered by your phone(microtubels).

The anecdotal evidence for that would be that the self / id is put to sleep when the microtubules are made unresponsive, the self / id is brought back by the motion of the microtubules, the similarity of quantum non-locality / quantum entanglement and the traffic of information via neurons (non-connected neurons firing simultaneously), etc, etc, etc.

However, their microtubel consciousness theory is self-reliant in its very nature. If consciousness comes into the body by another means (not by the quantum vibration of microtubels), then it doesn't matter if the microtubels are stopped or not - the microtubels being stopped while awareness is stopped would just be coincidental anecdotal evidence.

At least that is what I think that they are thinking.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


How are they defining consciousness? I'm stuck there in my own personal ideology.

I think there needs to be a definitive definition given for self / mind / id / consciousness in order to make it into one part awareness and one part will / interpreter / thinker / ability to produce thought. I just don't know where the parts diverge or converge.

What's the definition?



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   

webedoomed
The assumptions just boggle my mind. I just can't take this hocus pocus, just cause. The reasoning presented isn't enough for my mind. Not saying it isn't so, rather that we still haven't a clue, and are perhaps getting too far ahead of ourselves with the "what ifs". I'm all for these guys spending their lives chasing these notions. If they truly figure some things out, and can explain consciousness without the assumptions, as in... really have a grasp on it, then I'll bow my head in respect. Until then, cool story, bro!



Dr Hameroff told the Science Channel’s Through the Wormhole documentary: “Let’s say the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the microtubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information within the microtubules is not ToYdestroyed, it can’t be destroyed, it just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large”. Robert Lanza would add here that not only does it exist in the universe, it exists perhaps in another universe.


LInk

Sure hope I'm not the only one who caught that huge assumption. Why would they speculate that the quantum information retains it's complexity to hold consciousness as it's distributed and dissipats to the universe? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. Why would it exist in another universe... just cause... it makes them feel good to transcend death via faith?! Oohkay!!




This is the moment where it quits being science and becomes an article of faith. The new religion.

In one hundred years there will be quantum consciousness churches. I appreciate quantum theory and find it magical if you will, in and of itself. This leap without even empirical evidence is cheating in a field based on mathematics. That's just not allowable.

Even my beloved Albert, (that's Einstein) called this spooky action. His rational self in the mid industrial era sought a rational, mathematically provable, explanation to the problem and when he found it he was in the realm of magic.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by AutumnWitch657
 


As science progresses the link between what used to be called magic and the defined, measured, and explored realm of science move towards each other and in many cases overlap. These new theories and explanations of observed phenomena begin to build that bridge and to firm up its foundations, and as the months and years move along, and the data accumulates, some of the wisdom of both the ancients and the not-so-ancients appears to actually contain "wisdom".



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Here is the Science Daily article:

Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in 'Microtubules' Inside Brain Neurons Supports Controversial Theory of Consciousness

So is it time to track down all the debunkers and gloat or what?


edit on 18-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Let's wait for the peer reviews to come out. 6 out of 20 is a mere 30%. It's certainly pointing towards something, but I still think we're being a bit presumptuous to state we know the origins of consciousness with absolute certainty.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by webedoomed
 


We may never have absolute certainty. But that's not the important thing. The important thing is that this development will give us a framework to handle and buff the innate and uncanny psychic abilities of the human mind. That in turn might give humanity the tools it needs to defuse the ticking time-bombs that loom over the entire planet.

Wemightnotbedoomed

edit on 18-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Will? I think you mean may.

The language you use, in the absence of sufficient evidence, and with too many assumptions to take on, is still quite offsetting.

Remember your thread, the meta-analysis data was not a strong indication for the existence of psychic phenomena. Even then, I question the selection of studies used to come up with this meta-data.

As is, there's still too much assumption, and too little evidence to be speaking in absolutes as you're doing.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   

webedoomed
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Will? I think you mean may.


Even a slim chance is worth pursuing.


The language you use, in the absence of sufficient evidence, and with too many assumptions to take on, is still quite offsetting.

Remember your thread, the meta-analysis data was not a strong indication for the existence of psychic phenomena. Even then, I question the selection of studies used to come up with this meta-data.

As is, there's still too much assumption, and too little evidence to be speaking in absolutes as you're doing.


Dude, trust me. I am much more familiar with the body of parapsychological literature than you are. I've had dozens of veridical psychic experiences. I've seen s*** that would turn your hair white. I know what I'm talking about. I'm not making any assumptions and I can post evidence that would take you months or years to absorb.

The powers of the human mind are untapped. Science is slowly swinging around into a position that will allow us to tap them. Have a little hope.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Interesting. You continue to make more assumptions!

I didn't start off as a "skeptic", experience brought me to the most logical conclusions for what many refer to as "psychic" experiences.

I find there are two classes of "psychics". The ones who understand the mind hacks greater than most, and exploit other people's weaknesses with conscious intent, and then there is another group...

The second seems to have a need to satisfy their ego, or sense of superiority, yet hides this even from their selves. They latch onto foolish beliefs, while not recognizing the talents they have for what they truly are. These "psychics" are often hyper-sensitive to emotional cues, and have an intuition for people that is far beyond the norm.

I have yet to see any genuine psychic phenomena in person. The only things that still trip me out are a few youtube videos of people producing what they call, "chi". I think there may be a logical reason for what is presented, but just don't know what it is, yet.

I've witnessed a lot of bizarre things. My hair has very little white. Tend to take experiences as they are. Little shocks me these days.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Well, me screweed uppie!!!
edit on 18-1-2014 by zeroBelief because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

webedoomed

I have yet to see any genuine psychic phenomena in person.


I think this is what it boils down to with many skeptics. Who knows, I might be a skeptic too if I had yet to see it. So I try to sympathize with your position.

If you want to see it for yourself, its a matter of controlling the variables that influence psychic phenomena. That takes a little time and effort but it's well worth it. And even then, we don't know if we've identified all the variables.

I have seen it for myself and I've studied the evidence for years. From my perspective, its not a mere assumption to say psi is real. But I can understand how it looks that way from your perspective.

edit on 18-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


So I walked my dogs, bumped into a friend who gave me a book by Lyall Watson called Supernature wherein he looks to science to explain 'supernatural' and paranormal phenomenon. Then I came online, opened ATS and clicked on this thread. Coincidence? I think not.

[F&S&
btw]


NOTE to WBD: Careful. You might be co-opted into one of those “Self-appointed committees for the suppression of curiosity.”




edit on 18/1/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


How can you be co-opted into a self-appointed anything?



I'll remain curious for life, hence my desire to know, and remain critical.

No beliefs are required for curiosity.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by webedoomed
 


Sadly for you, there's nothing hocus pocus about anything they're saying. Of course people who want to live in denial will try to label everything they don't agree with as hocus pocus or magic but like I said you can either accept things that don't conform to your belief or stick your head in the sand.

Secondly, there isn't any assumptions being made except by you. There's no reason for information to lose it's state. The configuration of information doesn't depend on the configuration of matter. This goes to the heart of the debate between Hawking and Susskind. Information isn't even destroyed in a black hole.

Also, 6 out of 20 is pretty good especially compared to 0 out of 0 which is what you have with consciousness being an emergent property of the material brain. So the true assumption is that consciousness emerges from the material brain because there's zero evidence to support this notion.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

neoholographic
reply to post by webedoomed
 


Sadly for you, there's nothing hocus pocus about anything they're saying. Of course people who want to live in denial will try to label everything they don't agree with as hocus pocus or magic but like I said you can either accept things that don't conform to your belief or stick your head in the sand.


You do realize this same reasoning must be applied to you?


Secondly, there isn't any assumptions being made except by you. There's no reason for information to lose it's state. The configuration of information doesn't depend on the configuration of matter. This goes to the heart of the debate between Hawking and Susskind. Information isn't even destroyed in a black hole.


I have a series of papers. In totality, it contains a story. It's a book! Each page contains information. If I spread each page throughout the room, it's no longer a book. It's just lines that don't lead anywhere. You start somewhere, and don't finish. Yes, many assumptions are being made.


Also, 6 out of 20 is pretty good especially compared to 0 out of 0 which is what you have with consciousness being an emergent property of the material brain. So the true assumption is that consciousness emerges from the material brain because there's zero evidence to support this notion.


Zero evidence? Are you certain of this?



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by webedoomed
 


You said:


I have a series of papers. In totality, it contains a story. It's a book! Each page contains information. If I spread each page throughout the room, it's no longer a book. It's just lines that don't lead anywhere. You start somewhere, and don't finish. Yes, many assumptions are being made.


This simply shows you don't know what you're talking about. First you should try to understand the nature of information. I suggest reading the work of Claude Shannon. Then it would be helpful to read the debates between Susskind and Hawking. I say this because you're obviously being driven by a belief and like I said you can either stick your head in the sand and ignore the facts or you can have a truly open mind and follow the evidence where it leads.

You said earlier that you were curious but you seem to equate curiousness with blind skepticism.

You say these scientist are just trying to placate their faith and it's just hocus pocus and it's obvious you don't have a clue as to what they're saying. It's just a knee jerk reaction based on a pre-existing belief and it has nothing to do with curiosity or an open mind.

Again, they're not making assumptions. If you spread the book throughout the room the information isn't destroyed. If I drop my TV into a black hole, the information that describes my TV isn't destroyed. Again, they are not making assumptions. These things goes to the heart of a 20+ year debate between people like Hawking and Susskind. This is because the information that describes your book isn't determined by a configuration of matter.

Also, zero evidence.

There's no evidence that consciousness emerges from the material brain. It's an assumption that's accepted as true.
edit on 18-1-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join