A Ubiquitous Non-Local Field?

Neuroscience, quantum biology, and quantum physics are now beginning to converge to reveal that our bodies are not only biochemical systems but also sophisticated resonating quantum systems. These new discoveries show that a form of nonlocal connected consciousness has a physical-scientific basis. Further, it demonstrates that certain spiritual or transcendental states of collective Oneness have a valid basis within the new scientific paradigm.

If we are willing to step down from the donkey, we will find that our new path ahead has a place for reconciling science and spirituality. We should focus on the best of both worlds: engage in cooperation, not in conflict and competition.

Source


As has been discussed recently the problems of understanding consciousness are considerable. This theory presents that as existing, we are a part of the reality of quantum mechanics.

For me knowing that everything we perceive is he result of internal representations in the brain. Suggests that there is no real reason to understand ourselves from the perspective of what we really may in fact be.

A quantum computer.

Any thought?

reply to post by Kashai


Which is more probable?

1. Quantum entanglement is a wormhole between points in 3D space that maintains time synchronous locality until a photon hits it. So an AI computer with photo sensors could observe and collapse the probability wave function.

2. A ubiquitous field that places human consciousness squarely on par with physics.

3. Time has no objective physical manifestation. It is an emergent property of consciousness. That's why it seems to be entangled with free will.

4. Quantum mechanics is a cruel joke God created, just to screw with nerds.

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


One way of looking at it is that the Quantum Foam is a Quantum Farm.

Where life develops until it can relate.

reply to post by Kashai


It would be truly wonderful to be able to explain human consciousness in terms of quantum mechanics however the best that we can currently offer in this area is considered by the vast majority of scientists, as wildly speculative. I believe two of the frontrunners in the Quantum Consciousness field are theoretical physicist Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. Together they formulated Orchestrated objective reduction or Orch-OR. This theory suggest that microtubules, which are basically neuronal protein assemblies in the brain, behave as type of self-organizing quantum computer (Penrose and Hameroff, 1995).

The greatest challenge QM consciousness theories face are in how to overcome a very specific set of environmental conditions scientifically understood to be necessary for quantum events to occur, which normally involve extreme temperature gradients. Skeptics see the brain as an unlikely place for quantum effects to occur due to it being a largely, warm, wet and thermally noisy environment. The Orch-OR theory, however, proposes a viable means of overcoming these challenges. Theoretical physicist, Roger Penrose, suggest that quantum decoherence, due to a wet, warm and thermally noisy environment can potentially be avoided in an isolated quantum system due to OR (objective reductionism) which is a principle of space-time geometry (Penrose and Hameroff, 1995).

reply to post by agnisvaha

Abstract.
In Alzheimer’s disease, tau is hyperphosphorylated, which is thought to detach it from microtubules (MTs), induce MT destabilization, and promote aggregation. Using a previously described in vivo model, we investigated whether hyperphosphorylation impacts tau function in wild-type and transgenic mice. We found that following anesthesia-induced hypothermia, MT-free tau was hyperphosphorylated, which impaired its ability to bind MTs and promote MT assembly. MT-bound tau was more resistant to hyperphosphorylation compared to free tau and tau did not dissociate from MTs in wild-type mice. However, 3-repeat tau detached from MT in the transgenic mice. Surprisingly, dissociation of tau from MTs did not lead to overt depolymerization of tubulin, and there was no collapse, or disturbance of axonal MT networks. These results indicate that, in vivo, a sub-population of tau bound to MTs does not easily dissociate under conditions that extensively phosphorylate tau. Tau remaining on the MTs under these conditions is sufficient to maintain MT network integrity.

Source

What is interesting abut Hameroff's and Penrose's position is that when anesthesia is applied, it is the microtubules that shut down.


Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


What do you find interesting about it?

I looked over ORCH-OR some time ago and at certain points it becomes exceedingly technical making the theory largely inaccessible to the lay person who may have an interest. I'm not an expert in the field and only have little more than a discovery level knowledge of QM theories of consciousness. In light of this, perhaps we can be a little more specific and detailed in our discussions on the subject for the benefit of those who are new to this area of thought?

reply to post by agnisvaha

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.

Source

reply to post by agnisvaha


From a lay perspective we are way more than we generally think we are.

reply to post by Kashai


It's a very promising development considering that a great deal of the disharmony between religion and science largely hinges on the existence of an objective or absolute reality - a suprarational perception of sorts . In some schools of Hindu philosophy (Advaita; Sankhya) this substrate consciousness is referred to as Purusha.

This new development is going to create quite the sensation! As noted previously critics derided ORCH-OR based on the unlikelihood of a warm, wet and noisy environment sustaining quantum superpositions without decohering and causing wave-function collapse. I can't be sure what sort of impact this will have in the field of quantum mind other than making ORCH-OR more scientifically credible but it certainly is another step closer to confirming what many of us already know to be true.

They seem to be using the word Quantum to mean "unique physical whole" which is what a Holon is. A Quantum is a uniform basis that is indivisible and just one of countless others that exist with identical properties. I wish that the metaphysical community would discover a different term to embrace. They've completely rendered the term Quantum useless. It doesn't actually mean anything anymore, and that's tragic, considering how descriptively valuable it was until just a few years ago. Now, it's just another marketing adjective.

The theory of Orch-OR isn't using Quantum Mechanics to do anything other than to potentially explain the non-locality of consciousness. According to classical physical models, consciousness is an emergent quality of brains; no-brain no consciousness. What I believe Orch-OR is suggesting is that consciousness is pre-extant and isn't a brain-originating or dependent phenomena. This means that human beings are immersed in consciousness like one would be immersed in a body of water.

Notwithstanding the reality that new ideas often need to be monetized, however distasteful the reality, in order to facilitate growth and proliferation. Such superficial understandings of QM can been seen as an opportunity to educate the sensually driven now that the theory itself has been driven right onto their lap.

reply to post by NorEaster


"the visible body just happens to be where the wave function of the organism is most dense. Invisible quantum waves are spreading out from each of us and permeating into all other organisms. At the same time, each of us has the waves of every other organism entangled within our own make-up ..."

From the OP source link.

What is clear is that today Orch-OR has a clinical value and with that comes a consensus that places it beyond theory.

Beyond the quote above all matter everywhere is entangled in the same way.

So in the same moment each of us share consciousness with every other thing, everywhere that exist in reality.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by NorEaster



In an manner of speaking what it means is that perspectives into human difference's have no meaning at all.


Especially in relation to all things in moments.

At the same time we experience our individuality we also experience ourselves as all things and in regards to how we currently experience moments in general.

IMO consciousness has control of how individuals experience as moments.

I mean seriously if you consider second a moment the transfer rate from everything to you as an individual is something like 18 billion times.

Though I would ask for a more specific account.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by NorEaster



All things considered it is you whose argument is relatable to a Conservative position.



Any thoughts?

Penrose & Hameroff make the same old tired mistake of trying to reduce to physics that perennial scientific enigma of consciousness (an enigma, of course, only to science). Consciousness is not the product of quantum processes in matter. Quantised matter is the final manifestation of the universal consciousness some people call "God". The implication of their theory is that there is no survival of death because we do not take brains containing consciousness-generating microtubules with us when we die. This implies that they are assuming that God and heaven do not exist. Penrose has stated that he is an atheist, so that his theory is at least consistent with his philosophy. But, of course, his theory begs the question. If God does exist, then matter is not self-generated and consciousness does not need to be regarded (as most scientists do) as an epiphenomenal product of sufficiently complex brain processes, whether or not quantum ideas need to be invoked to account for them. Rather, the physical universe may be thought of as the material manifestation of God.

Superstring theory was developed in the 1980s by physicists Green & Schwarz by imposing the quantum-mechanical requirement in particle physics that a symmetry of a classical field theory remains a symmetry when the field is quantised. Their discovery that 496 spin-1 particles are needed to transmit forces between 10-d superstrings that are free of such quantum anomalies gave the impetus to the superstring revolution. At the same time, a theory of consciousness has been developed which explains why this mysterious number appears in quantum-mechanical calculations of superstring anomalies. This work has been shown to harmonize quantitatively with certain mystical traditions in remarkable ways. Indeed, superstring theory itself has been shown to be embodied in the sacred geometries of certain religions because they have been proved to be different but isomorphic representations of the same, universal mathematical pattern. For details, see here

reply to post by micpsi


Leonard Susskind is also an Atheist but his ideas on black holes and information can also be applicable to a religious orientation.

micpsi

The implication of their theory is that there is no survival of death because we do not take brains containing consciousness-generating microtubules with us when we die.

This statement may not be entirely correct.

In an interview with Deepak Chopra and believer in non-local consciousness (consciousness that is not-brain dependent or that can exist outside of the brain). Stuart Hameroff co-founder of the Orch-OR theory of consciousness had the following to say on the issue of whether or not consciousness survives death.

DEEPAK

So how does this relate to our identity? Who we are? Are we a non-local, consciousness, a non-local being that localizes when we reincarnate? Do you have any theories on this?

STUART

I can't say for sure. I can say that I think that when we are alive in our bodies, our consciousness is pretty much confined to our brain. We can have quantum entanglement with other people in the universe, and maybe exist in some kind of non-local distribution in altered states. Perhaps when we die the quantum information that is normally in our microtubules inside the neurons of our brain can kind of exist at large in the universe, but remain as an entangled entity. In other words, we retain some kind of self-identity as who we are, a soul.

DEEPAK

Well you know, Eastern spiritual traditions say that when we die we return to the state of pure potentiality. Which is our pure consciousness. But, even there we retain memories as superpositions of possibilities. I'm now translating in modern language. They would say that reincarnation is actually the localization, once again of those possibility fields. That we are part of a larger possibility field. Which is called the Akashic field. It's transcendent, being transcendent its non-local, being non-local it cannot be destroyed. It's immortal.

STUART

I would agree with that. I think Laszlo has talked about the Akashic field in quantum field theory.

DEEPAK

Right.

STUART

I think some connection to a kind of cosmic mind in Planck scale geometry is possible. I tend to focus on the biological end of it, on how consciousness occurs in the brain. You don't need a scientific explanation to believe in a cosmic mind, and be part of it. But that's my thing. I like to investigate science. I do think that our theory for example could explain consciousness as ripples in this fundamental level of the universe which could be the Akashic field, Bohm’s Implicate Order, Planck scale geometry. And many descriptions. I think they’re pretty much all the same thing.

Full Interview

If memory serves Multiverse theory was also, originally offered by Atheist.

I feel it is because when attempting to address issues like this in science the role of consciousness in there calculations is pervasive in every sense, from the perspectives of these Gentlemen, upon a larger scale.