The accumulation of evidence in support of Quantum Consciousness

I just read an article about artificial intelligence that just blew my mind and it added more evidence that points to Quantum Consciousness. To me this is elegant and simple and it's beginning to explain everything.

Quantum Consciousness explains everything as to why we our conscious and why we have these self conscious experiences.

Through things like Natural Selection and Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Consciousness gives you a complete and elegant theory as to the nature of consciousness and experience. Materialism on the other hand gives you nothing. What do we know so far?

The information is simply fascinating.

The discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules as predicted by Penrose/Hameroff.

phys.org...

Plants exhibit things usually associated with intelligence and consciousness and microtubules are found in plant cells.

www.springer.com...



We see quantum computation in things like photosynthesis. The important thing to remember is what's called the quantum walk. I will get to that later. Here's an article by Seth Lloyd.

How could tiny bacteria be performing the kind of sophisticated quantum manipulations that it takes human beings a room full of equipment to perform? Natural selection is a powerful force.

www.pbs.org...

In 2011 Physicist Diederik Aerts discovered that we think like Quarks. Here's an article about this.

Quantum minds: Why we think like quarks

Human thinking, as many of us know, often fails to respect the principles of classical logic. We make systematic errors when reasoning with probabilities, for example. Physicist Diederik Aerts of the Free University of Brussels, Belgium, has shown that these errors actually make sense within a wider logic based on quantum mathematics. The same logic also seems to fit naturally with how people link concepts together, often on the basis of loose associations and blurred boundaries. That means search algorithms based on quantum logic could uncover meanings in masses of text more efficiently than classical algorithms.

www.newscientist.com...

There was a recent paper that echoed something I have been saying for years. I have been saying that a real artificial intelligence would need to add a quantum mind or quantum computer to a classical one. Here's a recent paper.

Your Android phone (or iPhone, if that's how you roll) is an impressive machine, with computing speeds and storage capacities thousands of times those of desktop PCs from only years ago. If Moore's Law holds up, your smart watch may outshine today's phones the way today's phones eclipse old PCs.

But no matter how powerful these machines become, they may never develop true intelligence if we continue to rely on conventional computing technology. According to the authors of a paper published in the journal Physical Review X last July, however, adding a dash of quantum mechanics could do the trick.

The problem lies in part with the step-by-step processes that limit conventional artificial intelligence learning algorithms. The authors of the paper equate it with classical random walk searches. Random walks are sometimes described as being like the stumbling of a drunk person - each step is about the same size, but the direction of the steps are random. Random walkers can cover a lot of territory, and an artificial intelligence system that explores various problems with random walk learning algorithms can eventually learn new behaviors, but it takes a long time.

Quantum walks, on the other hand, describe a walker who doesn't exist at one spot at a time, but instead is distributed over many locations with varying probability of being at any one of them. Instead of taking a random step to the left or right for example, the quantum walker has taken both steps. There is some probability that you will find the walker in one place or the other, but until you make a measurement the walker exists in both.

Compared with a random walk, quantum random walks are much, much faster ways to get around. To the extent that learning is like taking a walk, quantum walks are a much faster way to learn.

That's not to say you'd need to make a full-blown quantum computer to build a truly intelligent machine - only part of an otherwise classical computer would need to be supplemented with a bit of quantum circuitry. That's good because progress toward developing a stand-alone quantum computer has been about as slow as the progress toward artificial intelligence. Combining artificial intelligence systems with quantum circuitry could be the recipe we need to build the HAL 9000s and R. Daneel Olivaws of the future.

physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com...

All I can say is,

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!

When I read this my jaw dropped. Now, where have we seen quantum walks before? In photosynthesis of plants and now they're talking about quantum walks for Artificial Intelligence!!!!! Here's more from Seth Lloyd.

The authors also speculated that the excitons were performing a particular quantum computation algorithm called a quantum search, in which the wave-like nature of propagation allows the excitons to zero in on their target. As it turns out, the excitons were performing a different kind of quantum algorithm called a quantum walk, but the “crackpot” fact remained: Quantum computation was helping the bacteria move energy from point A to point B.

Together with Alan Aspuru-Guzik and Patrick Rebentrost at Harvard, my MIT colleague Masoud Mohseni and I constructed a general theory of how quantum walks in photosynthesis can use the wavelike nature of quantum mechanics to attain maximum efficiency. It turns out that wavelike transport is not always the best strategy. To understand why, suppose that the lilypond is full of rocks sticking up out of the water. As the wave moves through the pond, it scatters off the rocks. As a result, the wave never reaches the middle of the pond, which remains calm and protected. This is a phenomenon called destructive interference. Although the wave can propagate a short distance, eventually the random waves scattered off the rocks interfere with the overall wave’s propagation, effectively stopping it in its tracks. The quantum frog becomes completely stuck: A classical hopping strategy would have been more efficient. In the antenna photocomplex, the “rocks” are microscopic irregularities and molecular disorder that scatter the quantum wave as it tries to pass through.

So we can easily see how Quantum Consciousness works in tandem with our material brain.

When we think about a decision we're going to make, a quantum walk occurs. This is Quantum Consciousness. A quantum walk means you're in a state of superposition and you're computing all possible paths. This is vs. a classical walk where you have to take a single path step by step.

So consciousness can be seen as a mixture of both. Say you're about to go to Rite-Aid or CVS across the street. A quantum walk occurs and you began to calculte should you go to CVS or should you go to Rite Aid. This is Quantum Consciousness. You then switch to a classical walk when you go to Rite Aid or CVS. Lloyd talked cont'd

cont'd

about wave particle duality. Wave (Quantum Consciousness) Particle(Classical observation).

These things beautifully and elegantly explain everything from consciousness, Psi, near death experiences and why we have this self aware experience.

a reply to: neoholographic

I just wanted to throw one thing into the mix:

"What Turin and colleagues have shown is that the total amount of free electron spins in fruit flies increases when they are exposed to general anaesthetics.

Read more at: phys.org...

So those anaesthetics that remove consciousness, are acting at the level of electron spin!!! That points very strongly to quantum consciousness to me.

I know this isn't the pure science post you'fe looking for, as it's more metaphysical. But it's so we can and will be and are, literally, a part of everything, and everything is a part of us. Perhaps one day more of us, or even all of us, willl experience that. What is does to everything, quantumly, is the question. This truly is, Penrose and Hammeroff, are, just the beginning of us looking at everything, literally, an entirely different way….
tetra

a reply to: tridentblue

Thanks for the link.

Hameroff is also an Anesthesiologist and that help lead him to these conclusions about Quantum Consciousness and led him to Penrose.

a reply to: tetra50

Thanks for the post and you're right some people make a metaphysical point in these areas and this is why this post is purely based on science. I and others have listed current scientific understanding and research.

It's truly amazing as to how much evidence has accumulated over these past few years in support of Quantum Consciousness.

a reply to: tetra50

I think there may actually be a lot of truth to what you're saying. The article I linked to doesn't even use the Q word, though they explain how Xenon is a great anaesthetic, and how its chemically inert. So it has no effect on neurchemistry at all, but it effects your consciousness of pain how? Through electron spin (Quantum level stuff). There's thing after thing coming out right now pointing to this, but its kept silent, or at least not making nearly the media waves you'd expect. Could it be that no one wants to deal with Quantum consciousness because then you open a door to weird things like entangled consciousnesses aka psychic connections between people? I dunno, but I think that different way of thinking is very much coming...

a reply to: tridentblue

They've already opened that door, artificially speaking. So, that's no reason to avoid the subject. It was known about, planned for, to some degree, quantum consciousness and entanglement. I think the idea is to take control through entanglement.

You can bet if you are hearing about it and seeing it now, it's been known about for quite some time, and planned for. The reason to let it out in small doses, is to see who pops up that knows about and understands and even remembers this, for we've been "here" already. That is part of the quantum state.
tetra

a reply to: neoholographic

oh, I've supplied such scientific evidence on your threads, too.
It's not that I do not understand the science, point being, it's important that scientists understand what's going on beyond science. For the implications, here, are far larger, than even science….

a reply to: tetra50

That's great and I hope more scientific research will be added to this thread because there has been a lot.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: tetra50

That's great and I hope more scientific research will be added to this thread because there has been a lot.

Poking around right now, looking for some old stuff I've seen, but this site looks really promising:
www.neuroquantology.com...
It seems to have a good mix of peer reviewed content and open minded stuff, some articles free some not.

Aside from the irrelevant link concerning quantum computers, this thread is just a re-hash of a thread the OP started last week, New Study Favors Quantum Mind.

Same claims, same links, same YouTube videos, same everything.

I tend to think along the same lines as yourself, neoholographic, as it relates to the processes resulting in the emergence of consciousness, self-awareness, our brain’s seeming ability to multi-process (quantum walk via superposition), etc. For a long time now I’ve questioned how many of our incredible feats of cognition and consciousness could be fullly understood and modeled via classical means alone.

But even though my gut, and limited knowledge, tell me it’s so, believe me I’ve taken considerable heat and abuse from others on harder core science forums for expressing my thoughts on this subject. Although I’ve read from many of the same sources you’ve cited, as well as others, I’m not a neuroscientist, biologist or physicist, and this has been pointed out to me (embarrassingly so!:cool. I’m just a dummy system software developer/engineer with a math degree and a mild curiousity about some of these topics. I’ve especially caught a tongue/keyboard lashing from certain physicist types who’ve challenged me by requesting specific examples of brain activities requiring quantum processes, along with supporting evidence to back it up.

I’ve got to admit, though, embarrassment aside, being interrogated by others often makes me question my own assumptions and causes me to look a little deeper. So, in that respect it’s a good thing. Here’s a couple examples of replies made to a thread I created once on Physics Forums regarding the Quantum Mind:

Replies to my statement,”It seems to me impossible to explain/describe the concept of consciousness while leaving out phenomena like superposition, decoherence and entanglement.”:

Those concepts are at the heart of everything. Presumably you mean they are involved in the generation of consciousness in a way that doesn't resolve to classical-like behaviour at the macro scale. If so, perhaps you could explain why you feel this to be likely and in what way you suppose this might occur.

For example, what, specifically about consciousness do you feel is beyond a classical-style explanation (i.e. intrinsically beyond the capability of the brain's neural networks as we currently understand them to function), how would quantum effects help, and at what scale do you envisage them functioning?

The statement about the brain using entanglement to correlate things seems out there to me. I don't suppose you have any reference for that?

Seeing quantum behavior between subunits joined on a protein substrate (the photosynthesis stuff) is one thing. Seeing it between different cells is many orders of magnitude different.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with some information that neurotransmitters actually work so well due to quantum behavior in the receptor regions. But that's a far cry from quantum behavior over large regions or in emergent properties. So to me without some sort of evidence, it is too much of a stretch to consider that multiple cells in our brains are capable of exploiting any type of non-classical behavior.

Next, a reply to a reference I had made to a UC Berkley study on quantum processes observed in photosynthesis:

I would suggest that it's a huge stretch jumping from a simple photochemical process to human cognition when, as I've noted, there is no evidence from any direction that any such thing is happening or could happen.

Finally, regarding a reference I had cited to a New Scientist article about entanglement and memory, the reply was:

There is absolutely no evidence that it is true, no evidence for a mechanism that could support this, and no behavioural evidence that would suggest it is happening, much less actually require it.

I would suggest that it's a huge stretch jumping from a simple photochemical process to human cognition when, as I've noted, there is no evidence from any direction that any such thing is happening or could happen.

The only reason I mentioned the above, neoholographic, was to relate to you some of the resistance I’ve encountered when bringing up the subject.

Regardless, I still have this gut feeling about the quantum nature of consciousness. Also, I’ve long thought that when truly “intelligent” machines emerge, they will likely process information using techniques of quantum computation, as well as doing digital and analogue processing. This will all take place seamlessly and in tandem. By mid-century I suspect things could get pretty wild.

Thanks. Great thread!

a reply to: netbound

Yeah, there has long been resistance to quantum mind. But these arguments that say it isn't required are weak. Do our minds factor large primes in reasonable time like Shor's algorithm? No. But when you look neuro-physical processes that point to quantum mind, you explore that possibility. We don't need to be forced, by necessity, to believe that the laws which govern the smallest things also govern the unfolding of our minds.

The bias toward classicality underlies all these attacks. But when I've heard top physicists talk about the 'classical limit', they describe classicality emerging from the "averages". I think I heard Lisa Randall who said something like 'the classical laws of physics emerge out of averages of the quantum laws'. On average? So quantum effects disappear on average at larger scales, that's fine and most likely true, but...

...the result of a quantum observation can decide the fate of the world. Measure a qubit, and kill yourself or not, based on the outcome. This is an example of quantum level events having macro-scale consequences. It happens all the time in nature. Any big news generating event from the LHC is the same thing, a quantum event rippling around the world. Yet the classicality addicts will ignore this, because they are rooted in 16th century dualistic concepts that hold that human mind is fundamentally separate from the physical world, and they discard these in your face examples of macro-scale consequences of quantum events for that reason: It doesn't "count" because a human was involved.

Now people can talk about how "improbable" LHC collision results having big effects on the world are, and that's fine. But I would remind anyone that having Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Oxygen atoms come together to form YOU is also an extremely improbable. Yet people are born every minute. Evolution is in the process of creating the improbable.

We are moving into a new era of understanding, like it or not.

Peace

originally posted by: neoholographic
cont'd

about wave particle duality. Wave (Quantum Consciousness) Particle(Classical observation).

These things beautifully and elegantly explain everything from consciousness, Psi, near death experiences and why we have this self aware experience.

I thought, the wave particle duality, is found to be caused by the electromagnetic field effect. As this is a electric universe.

About the A-I to me it just gets down to numbers, once the numbers are large enough, the machine could become aware.
With the logistics of it though, without higher speeds, as you mentioned, would be way to slow.

a reply to: netbound

Thanks for the post and there's some common fallacies in the responses you were getting. In the first response it said:

Seeing quantum behavior between subunits joined on a protein substrate (the photosynthesis stuff) is one thing. Seeing it between different cells is many orders of magnitude different.

This simply destroys the entire argument. He admits that quantum behavior between subunits joined on a protein substrate is one thing. He/she should have stopped right there. This is because nobody is talking about seeing quantum behavior on a classical scale.

Quantum consciousness can be seen as quantum information in superposition. Say you come to a fork in the road and you could go down Main St. or 2nd Street. You're calculating whether you should go down Main St. or 2nd Street (quantum walk) then when you decide to go down Main St. , there isn't any superposition because going down Main St. becomes an observed and measured event. So there isn't any reason why you should see quantum behavior scaled up to cells at higher orders of magnitude.

You then got this response.

I would suggest that it's a huge stretch jumping from a simple photochemical process to human cognition when, as I've noted, there is no evidence from any direction that any such thing is happening or could happen.

Typical. They say there's no evidence accept for the evidence that's being presented. Most materialist will just stick there heads in the sand and say this. This is because they have made up in their minds that these can't happen because it goes against their materialist belief system.

This simply occurs with everything that doesn't fit into their materialist belief system. I call it a religion of faith. They can't accept that others intelligently looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion. So there's no evidence or it's just woo and wishful thinking. This is just a cult mentality not science. When you can't even admit that there's evidence that contradicts your position it's blind belief. You can say there's evidence but it isn't strong enough for me to accept the underlying hypothesis. That's a reasonable answer. But blind materialist have to go overboard because this is their belief. So there isn't any evidence and people are just waking up from dreams and reaching these conclusions out of the blue. Typical nonsense.

The last thing that was said was this.

There is absolutely no evidence that it is true, no evidence for a mechanism that could support this, and no behavioural evidence that would suggest it is happening, much less actually require it.

I would suggest that it's a huge stretch jumping from a simple photochemical process to human cognition when, as I've noted, there is no evidence from any direction that any such thing is happening or could happen.

Whoever you were debating has a problem with science and they just want blind followers for whatever they believe. The Scientist involved were actually doing science and coming up with a theory to explain an observed phenomena. The problem here is that the person you were debating didn't like the fact that these Scientist dared to think and ask questions that didn't fit their material belief system.

There's no evidence of Hawking Radiation. For years there wasn't any evidence for the Higgs Boson. Should science have stopped asking questions and building theories because there's no evidence? The problem here is there's evidence and it's growing.

There's no evidence as to how the material brain can initiate recall of a specific memory.

How does the material brain tell the material brain which memory it wishes for the material brain to recall?

How does the material brain know which neurons to activate that's associated with the memory you're recalling?

They believe the brain can do these things with no evidence that it can. They say it must emerge from the brain. This is a statement that supports their faith not science.