Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New quantum conciousness?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New quantum conciousness?

    Thoughts?

    Neurophilosophy blog....

    Original paper....(PDF)

    Is the spinning dancer the key to consciousness?

    According to Efstratios Manousakis, a professor of condensed matter physics at Florida State University in Tallahassee, the key to consciousness could be lie in the quantum effects that occur in the brain when one is viewing ambiguous figures like the spinning silhouette (or Rubin's vase or the Necker Cube).

    These optical illusions are ambiguous because at any one instant they can be perceived either in one way, or in the other, but not in both. The image is said to "flip" when our perception changes from one interpretation of the image to the other. In the case of the spinning silhouette, some find it more difficult than others to switch between the two percepts.

    Manousakis bases his model of consciousess on the assumption that conscious awareness is generated anew each time one flips an ambiguous figure. He believes that the ability to flip the image is akin a quantum superposition, in which both possible interpretations co-exist simultaneously in a state that can be expressed as a quantum wave function. Each time the image is viewed, the wave function collapses and one or the other interpretations is perceived.

    Exactly what happens in the brain during the image flip could therefore be a neural correlate of consciousness, and may provide important clues to how the brain generates this most elusive of phenomena.

    Manousakis therefore collated the data from studies in which participants had their brain activity measured with electroencephalongram and brain imaging while viewing ambiguous figures, and determined the firing rates of neurons before, during, and after they flipped the images. Using these figures, he then determined a firing pattern which he believes is characteristic of the quantum effects that underly consciousness.

    Unlike some theories of quantum consciousness, such as that of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, this one is testable. Using data from studies in which participants were under the influence of LSD (which reduces the neuronal firing rate), Manousakis accurately predicted the frequency with which the subjects could flip the images.

    Some researchers who have been critical of previous attempts to use quantum physics to explain consciousness therefore think Manousakis's model is plausible.

    Reference:

    Manousakis, E. (2007). Quantum theory, consciousness and temporal perception: Binocular rivalry. Quantit. Biol. doi: 0709.4516.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

  • #2
    Somehow asking for my thoughts after reading that quote just blew my mind.

    It's good to see some theories that are actually testable, all this psychology I've been taking seems to be fundamentally BAD SCIENCE, which I suppose is why its still mainly under the faculty of arts.

    Any idea of what implications or further developments this could lead to? Treatments, therapies etc ?
    Q9450 + TRUE, G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2, GTX 560, ASUS X48, 1TB WD Black, Windows 7 64-bit, LG M2762D-PM 27" + 17" LG 1752TX, Corsair HX620, Antec P182, Logitech G5 (Blue)
    Laptop: MSI Wind - Black

    Comment


    • #3
      Depends on the mechansm. The implications could be broad to say the least.
      Dr. Mordrid
      ----------------------------
      An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

      I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

      Comment


      • #4
        I rather think he's seeing the Brain rebooting its image recognition software.
        If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.

        Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."

        Comment


        • #5
          Hm...sure, those theories sound extremelly attractive (in this regard I'm particularly found of holonomic brain theory ), and I think it's possible that drawing parallels/noticing similarities with wave equations/etc. might be rewarding...but why do they always have to imply that actual quantum effects play a large role in "macro" functioning of something as huge and hot as brain/neuron (and I don't even remember reading possible explanations as to how this should happen)

          @|Mehen|, I wouldn't bet on this having large impact on psychotherapy ( != psychology ) anytime soon
          BTW, your impression might be because of how higher education is structured in your place? Because...I believe you can't make such statements after taking few classes which aren't meant to produce masters from beginning of 5 year period to the end (and not dealing with much else).
          And methodology in area of social science can be pretty solid today (though I'm biased, one of profs. here played large role in making it better...and this isn't necceserilly a good thing for the students ), good enough apparrently that such hard distinction, "arts vs. hard science", doesn't exist here. (I'm actually always a bit baffled by this...)
          Last edited by Nowhere; 7 December 2007, 11:01.

          Comment


          • #6
            @nowhere

            dude, this isn't the JLH thread

            Comment


            • #7
              Uhmm...you all just have to accept that I speak Polnish here

              ("attractive" in this context is my native language perfectly ok...hard to think of it differently, even if thinking in Eng...Polnish)

              Comment


              • #8
                no no
                I said that because you addressed to kooldino when he has no posts in this thread

                Comment


                • #9
                  Oh, right (must be because I'm in the process of slowly reading through that thread; it's too big, dammit)

                  Alternatively we can say that my mind made a mistake when resolving a solution out of superposition of states arosing from reading few threads at the same time
                  Last edited by Nowhere; 7 December 2007, 11:21.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    just as I thought

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I've taken more than "a few" courses (I am a psych major after all). The problem with the science of psychology is that it is ultimately correlational (for the most part). Even when using the scientific method it is impossible to account for all the confounding factors. The science practices are solid, yes, but it is extremely hard to make causal or definitive statements from it.
                      If you read psych studies you will find, even after experimentation, they ultimately just find correlations, and then their reasons why this phenomenon occurs are purely speculative.
                      I think this has the potential for huge impacts on neuropsychology and even psychology in general. This is of course if this theory actually goes somewhere
                      Q9450 + TRUE, G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2, GTX 560, ASUS X48, 1TB WD Black, Windows 7 64-bit, LG M2762D-PM 27" + 17" LG 1752TX, Corsair HX620, Antec P182, Logitech G5 (Blue)
                      Laptop: MSI Wind - Black

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X