Thread: Does modern science have any views on quantum consciousness?

im a buddhist actually, i think that the implications possible quantum phenomena with consciousness are interesting but i wouldnt link this with the buddhist paradigm. Not because buddhism doesnt have anything to say about it, rather because buddhism isnt about having paradigms for the nature of consciousness. buddhism is about how you walk , how you talk, how you eat, how you sit etc. The buddha was presented with this question "is there a self", and he sat in silence and didnt answer. his silence on this issue has been interpreted in differant ways and has lead to differant philosophies, one possibility is that it would be wrong to say either yes or no, maybe the nature of the self is some strange abstract thing that neither exists nor does not exist.....maybe the buddha was silent because he didnt want his followers getting caught up in paradigms.

I use the term paradigm to mean a world view, specifically a world view common to a group. Everyone and all groups have a paradigm (usually a predominate one and several "minority" ones). No offense or anything is meant by the term, and it is shorter and easier to say "according to their paradigm" than it is to say "according to the way they commonly view the world and reality"

What I mean by "quantum consciousness according to the Buddhist paradigm" is the Buddhist developments and insight into the events & processes composing a "unit of consciousness".

The Buddha talked about this some when he spoke of the 5 Aggregates, the 5th being the Aggregate of Consciousness, and also when he spoke of Conditioned Genesis. It has been further developed in great detail over the years. Some have even gone in such depth as quantifying the frequency of these "units".

So I must respectfully disagree that Buddhism doesn't have anything to say about the nature of consciousness. On the contrary, it goes into great detail.

How The Mind Works
by Steven Pinker

Very, very good read. It's probably at your library.

It's very difficult for scientific explanations of consciousness to be summed up into a few sentences on a posting forum. I'm not even going to try, the inevitable incompleteness of the explanation would undoubtedly result in 20 pages of argument.

I will say this though, consciousness is best conceptualized as the result of several complex pattern recognition systems running silmutaneously.

Also check out the basics of cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology

Funny you should say 20 pages of argument. A google search on that book turned up Pinker's homepage at Harvard, which turned up this 22 page article he wrote in which he argues against the book The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way (and arguing for his)

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/pap...e_Mind_Work.pdf

so you are saying pinker is arguing against his own book? what do you mean? (i cant open pdfs)

nevermind....found it.


Publisher Comments:
In this engaging book, Jerry Fodor argues against the widely held view that mental processes are largely computations, that the architecture of cognition is massively modular, and that the explanation of our innate mental structure is basically Darwinian. Although Fodor has praised the computational theory of mind as the best theory of cognition that we have got, he considers it to be only a fragment of the truth. In fact, he claims, cognitive scientists do not really know much yet about how the mind works (the book's title refers to Steve Pinker's "How the Mind Works).Fodor's primary aim is to explore the relationship among computational and modular theories of mind, nativism, and evolutionary psychology. Along the way, he explains how Chomsky's version of nativism differs from that of the widely received New Synthesis approach. He concludes that although we have no grounds to suppose that most of the mind is modular, we have no idea how nonmodular cognition could work. Thus, according to Fodor, cognitive science has hardly gotten started.

Synopsis:
The computational theory of the mind is challenged in this book on cognitive science and its conception of how the mind works. Arguing that cognitive scientists have only just started to understand mental processing, this book explores the relationship between different theories.



im not entirely satisfied, i think the computer metaphore is the worst thing to ever happen to explaining consciousness. Experiments by Pribram shed doubt on that model. Removing parts of the brain without any change in salomanders, even mixing up slices of the brain letting it heal and there being no apparent change. i would have to agree with this above synopsis, we know basically jack shit about how the mind works.. i would argue that the brain "pattern produces" instead of "pattern recognizes". I would even argue that the brain itself is a pattern produced by consciousness. i hold to a solipsist view of the mind. You watch....before you know it the years will pass and even decades , we will be 70 years old with no reductionist grasp for how it works, im 100 percent sure of this. You should check out the book "the holographic universe", the first half of it is dedicated to Pribrams brain theory and how it functions like a holographic plate.

well for the comparison I am not particularly interested in scientific theories of how the mind works as an organ. I am more interested in any scientific theories on the nature of consciousness, particularly looking at events and processes that occur within a single consciousness event, if that makes any sense.

However, if science does not view consciousness as something "separate" from the mind as an organ then there is little point in comparison, and my search stops here.

Originally posted by dream-scape
well for the comparison I am not particularly interested in scientific theories of how the mind works as an organ. I am more interested in any scientific theories on the nature of consciousness, particularly looking at events and processes that occur within a single consciousness event, if that makes any sense.

However, if science does not view consciousness as something \"separate\" from the mind as an organ then there is little point in comparison, and my search stops here.

In science, consciousness is 'what the mind does'.

right, i agree...sort of....science cant account for an "i" yet. Its this reason that many people think that the I is synonomous with brain function.....open the brain up and look at it there is no "i-ness" there. thats why they call it the ghost in the machine. why would your search stop where science does though?

Originally posted by YourTheManNowDog
why would your search stop where science does though?

Don't take things out of context so much Not search as in personal search, but search as in search for information for the purpose of this particular comparison.

Originally posted by YourTheManNowDog
The buddha was presented with this question \"is there a self\", and he sat in silence and didnt answer. his silence on this issue has been interpreted in differant ways and has lead to differant philosophies, one possibility is that it would be wrong to say either yes or no, maybe the nature of the self is some strange abstract thing that neither exists nor does not exist.....maybe the buddha was silent because he didnt want his followers getting caught up in paradigms.

This is a different subject, but I think taking just that one line from an entire story and drawing some categorical conclusion is a misperception. The Buddha was not just some machine that spewed forth teachings. He taught to people according to their needs and development. Read the entire story and contemplate it within the context of that story and those involved in it.

It is pretty undeniable that the Buddha taught on many occasions that there is no permanent unchanging self or Self. Really it is only recent scholars who have taken small bits out of context have argued otherwise, perhaps because they could not accept no Self as a valid or valuable teaching, perhaps they could not believe a man like the Buddha would teach that, or perhaps because they did not know enough of the Buddha's teachings.

If there is no teaching of Anatam [no Soul, no Self, not Self, without Self] from the Buddha or in Buddhism, then why is it an important teaching to both the major schools of Theravada and Mahayana, who are in agreement on the matter? Are we to believe that Buddhist tradition has drastically deviated from the Buddha's original teachings?

As W. Rahula so elegantly puts it, "Religions which believe in God and Soul make no secret of these two ideas; on the contrary, they proclaim them, constantly and repeatedly, in the most eloquent terms. If the Buddha had accepted these two ideas, so important in all religions, he certainly would have declared them publicly, as he had spoken about other things, and would not have left them hidden to be discovered only 25 centuries after his death."

If you would like references to Suttas in which the Buddha categorically denies the existence of Atman [Soul, Self] on more than one occasion, I would be happy to provide them. If you would also like reference to the Sutta that contains him remaining silent on the question, I would be happy to provide that as well so that you may read the entire story.

i mean i dont have an issue with the teaching of anatman. im well aware of the buddhas teachings on anatman......my personal beliefs are not at odds with anatman either. where are you getting the idea that i believe otherwise? The teaching of anatman does not say there is no self, obviously there is a self that we experiance and call it "i". Rather, anatman addresses the component nature of that "I", and the fact that it is temporary and subject to change. I dont think iv implied anywhere that i believe in an eternal soul or i have "i"?Anatman does not imply a nihilistic view of the mind either. The buddha repeatedly criticised the javikas who believed the mind was like the flame of a candle and when the candle burned out the flame ceased. In order to believe the mind is transcendant in some form we dont have to subject ourselves to eternalism, or believe in an eternal self. This is how i manage to pull off a solipsist view while also being buddhist. reality = maya.


has buddhism changed so much since the time of the buddha? i wouldnt be surprised. Look at sects like Agonshu and it should be obvious how a branch of buddhism can not even look like buddhism. Some of the original Dharmapada quotes even suggest the buddha was a theist himself......upon the buddhas enlightenment he said this which remains controversial even to this day.

"Through many births I have wandered in vain, seeking the Builder of this house, and I have suffered much, life after life after life.

"O House-Builder, you are revealed! You will not build a house again for me. Your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My consciousness has gone beyond Your conditionings; Your presence have destroyed all my cravings." » Dharmapada 11 (Jaravagga): 153&154

who was this house builder the buddha was refering to? some say it is desire others say it is brahma....did the original buddhism look much like brahmanism? we will never know.

in your first reply you use the time the Buddha was asked if there is a self and remained silent, seemingly as some means to state the Buddha did not answer this question and it's therefore not important to Buddhism... seemingly this is what I get you were saying.

However, whatever you meant, you have taken the time he said that entirely out of context. And, again, whatever you meant, the Buddha was most certainly not silent about the issue of self or the issue of Self.

are you theravada buddhist by any chance? i dont think the question is that important to buddhism IMHO,,,,i think if you asked the buddha he would smile and say just focus on you practice. keep sitting. These questions if anything are part of the problem in creating stress etc (under the buddhist paradigm).......im a zen buddhist by the way all we do is sit we never even look at sutras heh. Are you entirely confident with what you believe the buddha meant by no self? i ask because i always found this a difficult concept to grasp, it is never layed down in any clear cut fashion and early on when i first began buddhism it seemed at odds with the notion of rebirth. If you havent read the bardo or the tibetan book of the dead it may offer other insights into what anatman may mean.

Originally posted by YourTheManNowDog
has buddhism changed so much since the time of the buddha? i wouldnt be surprised. Look at sects like Agonshu and it should be obvious how a branch of buddhism can not even look like buddhism. Some of the original Dharmapada quotes even suggest the buddha was a theist himself......upon the buddhas enlightenment he said this which remains controversial even to this day.

You are right. I don't doubt that it hasn't changed, and would be kind of silly to think it has not. However, what I do highly question are assertions that it has changed so much that it now goes against the original teachings.

Whether or not the Buddha was a theist, depends on your definition of "theist". He did not deny the existence of Brahma as a god. Rather, he denied that Brahma was a creator god or that he was omniscient or that he was free from suffering. According to Buddhist cosmology, Brahma was the first being to come into existence when this universe began, and incorrectly believes himself to be a creator god. Buddha didn't deny the existence of gods and other beings and planes of existance; however he did deny a "personal god" and did deny the belief that Brahma was the creator.

Originally posted by YourTheManNowDog
Anatman does not imply a nihilistic view of the mind either. The buddha repeatedly criticised the javikas who believed the mind was like the flame of a candle and when the candle burned out the flame ceased. In order to believe the mind is transcendant in some form we dont have to subject ourselves to eternalism, or believe in an eternal self.

Yes I agree with you. I think both of those views, the annihilationist "I have no self" and the eternalist "I have self" are wrong views according to the Buddha's teachings.

actually, you are right about it being out of context....(its been a while since iv picked up a sutra)....the question that the buddha remained silent to was "is the cosmos eternal". that was just braught to my attention...woops.

Oh I had thought you were referring to the time Vacchagotta asked him if there is an Atman and if there is no Atman, and the Buddha remained silent on both questions. The remainder of the account is then another asking the Buddha why he did not answer, to which he explains why he didn't answer Vacchagotta. If one just takes his silence without considering his explanation, it can be perceived almost anyway one wants it to be. It is one of the more common misused references used by scholars who wish to prove the Buddha did not teach Anatman.

Wow, I've really derailed my own topic huh

‘No self’ -
is the ultimate unchained ability of the spirit man; it is the returning of the spirit unto its original state along with all of its miraculous abilities, unencumbered by the limitations of the carnal mind, or the elemental laws of the earth. It is the unification of the whole of spirit of all mankind, spirit, soul, and body, united yet separate, and corporate in ability, and in resources.

An endless flow of truth, and enlightenment, it is the incorporation of all human intellect and knowledge attainable by the individual without limits. It is the highest attainable realm of knowledge, the third eye of understanding, the Devine eye. This is the event which is awaited by all of creation, the fulfillment of prophetic foretelling throughout all human history. It is the end all of all human transient nesses the culmination of all tests set before man from the Garden of Eden on.

It is the fullness of the God-head bodily.

>> Removing parts of the brain without any change in salomanders, even mixing up slices of the brain letting it heal and there being no apparent change.

So you're suggesting that that isn't the way computers work?

When designing parallel fail-over neural networks, that is exactly the way you design them.

In the AI I designed a couple of companies ago, you could yank any blade or any hard drive (think of it as the parallel to a 'thought module' and a 'memory module') and the system would continue to function. Do that enough, and it would begin to impact performance. Just like the brain. Further, you could "mix up slices of the brain" - pull blades and hard drives, mix them around, and put them back in, and give it time to heal - and it would function as expected. The number of neurons and synaptic connections exceeded that of a house-fly.

So how, exactly, does this break the computing analogy?

In my opinion, the brain is just a massively parallel computer...

Good point, i dont remember exactly but I think the idea behind pribrams experiment with salomanders was that he was able to remove large portions of their brains without any change, not just one or 2 times but multiple times, its been a while since iv read it, i will double check tomorrow if that was the case or not.. when i said it was the worst idea ever to model the brain after a computer i think i was shooting off at the mouth (i do that alot) but i do have some objections to it that maybe you can address. if that is the way neural networks work then i dont have an issue with that idea. Im not terribly against the idea as mind as a computer as i am mind as only computer, one of the reasons is because i completely cant even begin to fathom how even the most complex computer system would produce the effect of an "i",,,,,if that even makes sense,,,,,the mind may function as a computer on some level but do you think that because it functions logically that puts it on par with the computer analogy? does the brain use binary? I totally understand it may have some similarities to computers but there are alot of things that function in a logical structured, even networked way that i wouldnt think about comparing to a computer neccessarily, i just dont think that is the complete model for the self. From personal experiance with them i believe in deeper aspects of the mind. Im familiar with some AI as well iv designed some for video games iv made (usually pathfinding) probably nothing as complex as what you did. ill be blunt though, i dont believe that sentient AI is even possible, all AI is is simply simulations of intelligence, you cant produce an "i" with it. makes for some good movies and stuff though, we wouldnt have had terminator without the idea heh. If we can develope a robot that can walk with me, talk with me, engage with me and tell me how it feels , then maybe we can watch football together or some old full house episodes i would give the idea more credit. So in conclusion i see what you are saying about neural networks, but do you believe that that structure alone warrents it the metaphore of a computer? Id like to point out that im not disputing that the brain works as "some kind" of system. i dont even know if what i typed made any sense. would it be possible to use the analogy of a neural network without using the computer analogy? It seems obvious to me that differant experts cant agree on the model for it, that alone seems to cloud things for me a bit and prevent me from accepting that idea totally. Kim were you a computer science major by chance?

there is alot to the mind that needs to be accounted for that isnt. you probably are going to role your eyes but there are aspects to the mind that seem to transcend physical limitation...ie veridical viewing during OBE (which i have experianced)......i know how you feel about that though and i dont really want that to be the focus of what im saying. So lets just stick to what we can communicate effectively...so i will just pose a question...why do you think that computer model for brain is any better than say,,,i dunno,,,,,a powerline model for the brain......some kind of network that sends data around other than a computer?

man im high as a kite right now i dont even know where i am.......actually some computers use trinary right? i guess the data format isnt important in determining if its a computer or not. i suppose the analogy does fit...im not fully won yet though id like to talk more about it with you...im going to sleep now but ill pm you.

dreamscape: I've said it before on another topic- for interesting articles on consciousness go to the Noetic Science website or get Shift (their magazine) There are all kinds of articles on Quantum Consciousness, (fields of consciousness, etc.) They tend to have thematic issues (a couple of months ago it was education, which bored me personally), but most of the time their topics are fascinating.

And no, I don't work for them.

I just started reading Wikipedia's page and it looks pretty good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

I have a read a few books on the subject and there is not a lot of actual science on quantum consciousness, I'm sorry to tell you. While there are ideas, none are even remotely complete. Books on quantum consciousness tend to be mostly made up of introductory material on just quantum mechanics, and maybe a few events in the history of AI. I am not prepared to recommend any to you because I think they all equally suck.

The basic gist underlying them all, it seems, is the idea that somehow the brain is engineered to "amplify" quantum mechanical effects. Some say this is possible because of small structures on cells, while others say it is simply a matter of the brain being made up of material made from quantum elements.

But you have to remember that none of them are scientific yet, in the sense that they don't have any specific testable and falsifiable predictions.