Cosmic Symphony: A Deeper Look at Quantum Consciousness

[Dover]

The rise of quantum consciousness could be the biggest step our species has taken since it came down from the trees. It would bring us to a new stage of species maturity and could also enable us to surmount the problems that threaten our life and our future.

But just what is quantum consciousness, or QC? I have spoken about QC in my previous posts, but the question merits a further, deeper look.

First of all, what is consciousness? The commonsense assumption is that consciousness is a stream of experience produced by the brain. As long as the brain functions, there is consciousness; when the brain shuts down, consciousness vanishes. This, however, is not necessarily the case. It could be that our brain no more produces consciousness than the radio produces the symphony that comes through its speakers. The symphony, too, disappears when the radio is shut down, yet we know that it's not produced by the radio. Both the radio and the brain pick up signals, transform them, and display the result in our stream of conscious experience.

According to received wisdom, the things and events that make up our experience of the world originate in the world. People and things around us reflect light and make sound; for the most part they can be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted. The corresponding signals reach our eye and ear in the form of waves in the electromagnetic field, in the air, and in the physical, chemical, and biological fields in and around our body. Our exteroceptive senses transform this information into nerve signals, and the signals are analyzed, sharpened, and interpreted by our brain. The result is the experience that appears in our consciousness.

...cont'd


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ervin-laszlo/cosmic-symphony-a-deeper_b_532315.html

[Meeker Morgan]

1. More horseshit from Zsa-Zsa's site.

In this context 'quantum' is a synonym for 'horseshit'.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/huffpo_cements_its_reputation.php

[trotsky]

2. The thing that bothers me most about this New Age bunkum...

is that it takes science down a dark alley, beats and rapes it, then emerges declaring just how much science NEEDED that.

[laconicsax]

26. You need to keep an open mind.

:rofl:

[darkstar3]

95. Isn't that a quote from somewhere?

That's gonna bother me...

[uberllama42]

3. "It could be that our brain no more produces consciousness than the radio produces...

It could be that our brain no more produces consciousness than the radio produces the symphony that comes through its speakers.

Of course, there's no evidence of that, which makes this entire piece very silly.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

4. What the fuck does that mean?

Of course the radio produces the sound - where the hell is it coming from otherwise? All - or nearly all - of the frequencies produced by the symphony are represented by the radio's speakers. It wouldn't be a fucking analog of the sound if it didn't. That shows exactly zero understanding of how a radio works.

[uberllama42]

11. I think what this article is trying to say

is that the brain creates an analog of consciousness in the same way a radio creates and analog of the symphony. That's a shitty analogy, because they're arguing that consciousness has some supernatural source, while a symphony has a natural source. A radio is a closer analogy with the natural process of the brain receiving data from the sensory organs. Still not an analogy that I would find useful, but closer than this nonsense.

[tama]

12. David Bohm

uses similar analogy, brain as TV that tunes in various channels and filters out others. Hence also the analogy of 'Doors of Perception' by Huxley, McKenna and others who have studied altered states of mind.

Calling various levels of 'reality' or quantum potential "supernatural" sounds very incoherent, alianated and extremely limited way of filtering nature, as if nature would be defined by classical mechanics alone.

One basic problem with the hypothesis that consciousness is nothing but product of classical mechanics in brain is that in that case there would be no need and no function for consciousness what so ever.

Subjecting one self to 200 years old theory of physics and hypothesis of consciousness reducing to that theory (that is also empirically falsified) sounds to me like symptom of terrible collective mental disorder.

[uberllama42]

22. "no need and no function for consciousness what so ever"

What evidence is there that consciousness is necessary? What evidence is there that it has an a priori function? Why should we assume that consciousness has a function or that there is some kind of imperative behind it?

that theory (that is also empirically falsified)

Can you expand on that? How has "that theory" (which I take to mean materialism) been empirically falsified? Or, if you mean something other than materialism, what do you mean?

[tama]

24. What evidence is there

that evidence is necessary? Who or what is asking evidence for what? Yet all the math and scientific theories available to us are products of consciouss thinking.

"Materialism", meaning here the view that consciousness is produced by classical mechanics in brain and nothing else, states that there are no "mind-over-matter" events of mental causality, such as placebo effect where a mental belief has statistically very strong causative power.

I.e. materialism is crackpottery. Beats me why any consciouss being would take it seriously.

[uberllama42]

27. Are you arguing that we can tell purely from logic

that consciousness must have some non-material source? That's not so. Consciousness is something we can observe empirically. We don't know the nature of consciousness a priori. If we make a claim about consciousness, it is a claim that must be supported empirically. You can't just deduce the nature of consciousness without making any observations about how the mind works.

Who or what is asking evidence for what?

I'm asking for evidence that consciousness is caused by something other than brain activity. You haven't presented any. If you don't, there is no reason to believe your claim about consciousness and I will dismiss it out of hand.

Yet all the math and scientific theories available to us are products of consciouss thinking.

So what?

"Materialism", meaning here the view that consciousness is produced by classical mechanics in brain and nothing else, states that there are no "mind-over-matter" events of mental causality, such as placebo effect where a mental belief has statistically very strong causative power.

The placebo effect is a natural phenomenon governed by classical mechanics. It is a response to external stimuli that must travel to the brain through certain well-understand material channels, i.e. sensory organs. The brain then responds to those stimuli in ways that mimic responses to chemical stimuli within the body. If your eyes and ears lead you to believe that you are taking aspirin, even though you're taking a placebo, your body will sometimes respond in a way similar to the way it would have if there was really acetylsalicylic acid in your system.

This of course relies on the expectation that aspirin will affect the body in a certain way. It's not merely the label "aspirin" that leads to the effect. A person needs to have an understanding of what the drug does before that happens. Holding that belief is the result of a certain physical state in the brain, a stored result of previous sensory input. All of this is the result of material processes.

In short, the existence of the placebo effect doesn't violate classical mechanics at all.

[tama]

31. A good reply

I appreciate the style (no ad hominems etc.). :)

First, let's keep in mind that coincidence does not imply causality. The claim that mental phenomena reduce to brain is historically and culturally an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. To begin with, there is no such theory of consciousness available to be tested. So what can really be discussed in scientific terms of attempts to relate mental phenomena to mathematical physics is, which of the two main hypothesis available holds more promise of explanatory power, materialistic reduction to classical physics or quantum mind hypothesis?

You can't just deduce the nature of consciousness without making any observations about how the mind works.

I'll take that as a support for also empirical introspective methods in study of cognition, in addition to classical measurements. Logic and mathematics are also part of introspective methods, observations about how the mind works, not classical measurements. What would remain of mathematical physics without logic and mathematics and a priori knowledge of them? Nothing much. To create a consistent physicalist theory of consciousness, logic and mathematics and consistent explanation of their origin cannot be excluded from the whole picture without the whole house of cards falling down.

I'm asking for evidence that consciousness is caused by something other than brain activity.

The question was, in materialistic presupposition what is the function of consciousness, as it would have no causative power. You said there is no need for function, only for evidence. Here your consciousness is asking for evidence about nature of consciousness. Why and how? Why and how would mere neurological electrochemical processes produce mental phenomena questioning for evidence of anything?

So what?

So everything. Again, to prove the materialistic hypothesis, that consciousness reduses to classical part of mathematical physics, you need a theory of mathematical physics that explains (in mathematical description) among everything else, how that theory produces mathematics (that can also describe non-classical more funda-mental physics) in the first place. There is currently no such theory and severe doubts of logical possibility of such theory. All that the materialist presupposition has to offer is promise of delivery of such theory in the future. I don't see any point in that line of argumenting and am not holding my breath in expectation.

The placebo effect is a natural phenomenon governed by classical mechanics. It is a response to external stimuli that must travel to the brain through certain well-understand material channels, i.e. sensory organs

First, to prove your extraordinary claim you need to show me a fully developed and testable theory of mathematical physics that reduces linguistic meaning to classical physics. Producing a consciouss classical computer able to pass the Turing test would suffice, I suppose.

Fact is, the placebo effect of mind affecting body remains not understood in terms of materialistic paradigm. The expectation modell leads just to chicken and egg type of infinite regress.

I cannot claim to give full justice to the quantum mind hypothesis, here's a good up to date introduction to the subject if you are really interested (even in the 'know thy enemy' sense if not in terms of scientific curiosity):
http://www.quantum-mind.co.uk/introduction-1-c32.html

[trotsky]

34. No ad homs?

That's rich, coming from someone who basically says that anyone who disagrees with you is mentally ill.

[tama]

36. Well

let's just say that I see no problem defining a society that is behaving like a cancer tumour and sawing of the branch that it is sitting on suffering from a collective mental disorder. As born and raised into this lunacy I'm certainly not excluded but also part of this mental disorder. Getting better and opening up to a more coherent relation with our environment that we depend on is certainly possible and worth a try, but each can start only from themselves. "It's them others" is a symptom of the disease as is also dogmatic materialism, IMHO.

[trotsky]

39. Oh, totally.

In fact I think you should give up using any and all inventions and products of "dogmatic materialism" in order to completely free yourself.

Please sell or give away your house, your car, and your computer for starters. Thanks!

[tama]

32. Evidence

of consistent quantum interference effects in perception-cognition:
http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/article/view/301/349

[tama]

37. More evidence:

http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/article/view/368

[rrneck]

5. I thought you needed one of these

for quantum receptivity:



We've got five senses. That's it. Trying to turn scientists into priests is foolish.

[tama]

25. Couple corrections

1) Plants use quantum computation in photosynthesis. I guess you mean that plants are more receptive than human animals? ;)

But perhaps mathematicians, whose finite brains can think about infinite sets and wierd stuff like that, are more like plants than averadge humans?

2) We've got more than the five senses that Aristotle could count up to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senses

[rrneck]

40. Although it could be convincingly argued

that I'm little more than a vegetable before nine or ten in the morning, the relationship of quantum computation to the everyday experience of plants is beside the point I was rather less than artfully trying to make.

There are indeed more than Aristotle's five senses (thanks for the info), but anything beyond those five are not germaine to everyday experience either. Balance and Acceleration, Temperature, Kinesthetic sense and pain are, for all intents and purposes, touch. You aren't aware of the function of your inner ear any more than you are aware of your nervous system telling your heart to beat or your lungs to fill.

The magical properties of sub atomic particles may well be the foundation of all existence. I have read that without some inherent instability biological systems cannot survive. Our sense of free will itself may be the result of the magic that is quantum physics. It's fun to think about, and inspiring to marvel that such simplicity could result in such complexity.

But we are no more aware of the reality of quantum mechanics than of the sloshing about of the fluid in our inner ear. I'm obviously not a physicist, but I'm perfectly willing to accept, some might say believe, what modern science has to say about the behavior of sub atomic particles. Not because I have personally experienced that phenomena, but because the cultural and societal structures that tell me these things exist are the same structures that keep the lights on and ice in my scotch.

If we, as critters walking around in the world, want physical evidence of subatomic phenomena, we have to build a really big machine to do it. The image in the above post is the Hadron Collider. The notion that any structure in our physiognomy is in any way attuned to or able to detect sub atomic interaction is absurd. Anyone who proposes to be aware of that interaction or any ability to help others respond to it is no longer doing science.

Everything I have read regarding quantum consciousness is little more than speculative word salad, and eventually those promulgating that idea will have to come up with some actual evidence or shut up about it. Unless of course they turn it into a religion. These quantum consciousness gurus are already asserting, by implication, that there is a relationship between you and your experience of the outside world that they understand that you don't. All that speculative word salad may eventually become a doctrine to describe your relationship to the thing that makes you what you are. They are creating a creator. And of course, every religion needs priests to show us the way to god.

It's already started. Here are a few links I found in about two minutes of Googling:

http://www.quantumtouch.com/
Quantum-Touch is a method of natural healing that works with the Life Force Energy (LFE) of the body to promote optimal wellness. Life Force Energy, also known as “chi” in Chinese and “prana” in Sanskrit, is the flow of energy that sustains all living beings. Quantum-Touch teaches us how to focus, amplify, and direct this energy, for a wide range of benefits with surprising and often extraordinary results.

http://www.epfxbiofeedback.net/index.html
KRISTY's EPFX Quantum Biofeedback and Scalar Wave Laser Technology
Experience Ancient Wisdom as Modern Technology
This is how Kristy is able to measure the natural life force within you and use the positive quantum frequencies to help correct and reduce the stressors energetically within you.

http://www.lulu.com/product/media-download/sacred-geometry-and-sound-healing---how-ancient-hermetic-laws-quantum-physics-and-universal-symbolic-archetypes-all-converge-in-your-optimum-wellness/2535550
Sacred Geometry and Sound Healing - How Ancient Hermetic Laws, Quantum Physics and Universal Symbolic Archetypes all converge in your Optimum Wellness
Sacred Geometry and Sound Healing: How Ancient Hermetic Laws, Quantum Physics and Universal Symbolic Archetypes all converge in Your Optimum Wellness - by Bruce Rawles. This audio program (approx. 66 minutes) was recorded at the Globe Sound Healing Conference, Woodland Hills, California, 27 January 2008. For more info, visit: www.GeometryCode.com (Note: all mp3 files are zipped to minimize download time; you can unzip the files with Stuffit Expander or (GUITar), both available free online.)

And last but not least:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/
Amanda, a divorced photographer, finds herself in a fantastic Alice-in-Wonderland experience when her daily, uninspired life literally begins to unravel, revealing the cellular, molecular and even quantum worlds which lie beneath. Guided by a Greek Chorus of leading scientists and mystics, she finds that if reality itself is not questionable, her notion of it certainly is. Stunning special effects plunge you into a world where quantum uncertainty is demonstrated - where Amanda's neurological processes, and perceptual shifts are engaged and lived - where everything is alive, and reality is changed by every thought. This film gives voice to the modern day radical souls of science, making them the true heroes of our day as they conquer and map the greatest uncharted territory yet - man's consciousness itself.

Faith ain't science, and science ain't faith. They both exist in our everyday experience like vinegar and oil. And there's always some asshole willing to dump it on a pile of word salad.

edited because I'm still a veg this morning

[tama]

44. To confess

most of the jargon of contemporary theoretical physics is just word salad for me. But my lack of PhD in physics does not mean that the word salad would lack coherent meaning. But there are many kinds of hints and clues - besides occationally checking wikipedia to decipher parts of the word salad - together with more easily approachable philosophy of mind to make at least some sense of the theories and speculations and what are worth serious consideration and what are not.

In current extremely politicized frames of discussion it is understandable that the very fluffy examples you mention easily create also hostility towards serious scientific approaches to quantum theory of cognition (together with normal academic conservatism). As for the fear of "priests to show us the way to god.", notions of absolute/all/philosophers god/panpsychism/holomovement etc. that sometimes pop up - quite understandably in some quantum mind approaches and elsewhere in scientific contexts - should not be mixed up with notions of god peculiar to most detestable forms of monotheistic religions. Though such misuse cannot be excluded and in the name of free speech shouldn't be.

Secondly, I cannot agree with you that other than the five senses wouldn't and couln't be germaine to everyday experience. There are great differences between individuals in respect to what senses they give attention to and stay aware of, e.g. professional athletes consciously practice intraceptive body-awareness as that helps them to get better results in competitions. Synaisthetic phenomena and linguistic differences also complicate the picture, in my native language what you call touch-sense (skin) is called approximately feel-sense. Touchy-feely thingie... :)

Thirdly, as should be clear by now, quantum phenomena are not limited to subatomic phenomena (only subatomic particles are ;)). As the recent empirical evidence of quantum computation in photosynthesis, molecules behaving quantum mechanically in laboratory experiments etc. shows, the belief that quantum phenomena are limited to subatomic level has to be discarded, together with the belief that quantum coherence cannot funcion in warm and wet surrounding. There is scientific progress happening, who could have thought? :)

And as the new evidence favours the quantum approach to theory of mind, time to take it more seriously even in "better circles". Especially when even conservative string theorists like Lubos start to talk about holographic principle seriously...

Very exciting times in the scientific front. :)

[rrneck]

60. Can you describe

the equipment used to measure the effect of the waves referred to in the OP on the physiognomy of the human brain?

[tama]

63. Huh?

What kind of question is that? I'm not responsible for the OP.

But if you mean that a honest question, how well do you understand quantum measurements? Do we need to start from double slit experiment, from which the wave function is deduced?

I've posted also a couple links to experimental studies in this tread, you can check them to get some idea how empirical studies in this field are done. All in all, it's extremely complicated puzzle.

[rrneck]

80. Okay,

from one of the links you posted:

An Experimental Confirmation during Perception and Cognition in Humans

We introduce the quantum theoretical formulation to determine a posteriori, if existing, the quantum wave functions and to estimate the quantum interference effects of mental states. Such quantum features are actually found in the case of an experiment involving the perception and the cognition in humans. Also some specific psychological variables are introduced and it is obtained that they characterize in a stringent manner the quantum behavior of mind during such performed experiment.

So it looks like they presented various people with certain visually ambiguous images, (optical illusions) and measured their responses with great accuracy. Their measurements failed to take into consideration any life experiences of the individuals. If one of them had even a passing interest in Picasso it renders all their measurements worthless.

And from the same paper:
Let us introduce now the basic framework of our formulation. The wave function y of quantum mechanics represents a mental object.

The entire body of work that is loosely referred to as "quantum consciousness" asserts there is a causal relationship between human cognition and quantum wave function. So, what equipment exists that has established that "the wave function y of quantum mechanics represents a mental object", what does that equipment look like and how does it work?

edited for clarity

[tama]

81. Heh

"what does that equipment look like and how does it work?"

Take a look in the mirror. :)

In case you really don't know: wave function is a mathematical form deduced from particle hits in measurement device and you really need to study the double slit experiment to get an idea what quantum theory is about. In that sense wave function "exists" or "is measured" only in the mental processes of theoretical physicists and those reading their theories. That (partly) explains why experimenter intention cannot be excluded from quantum measurements and why it is not kosher to think in terms of classical concrete objects in context of quantum theory and why scientists working in quantum theory talk about potential "observables" rather than "objects".

Funny thing is, something as inconcrete and wierd (at least in relation to classical world view) as quantum theory is currently the most fundamental theory of physics and has the strongest empirical support. Basically it's all just math (that strangely produces empirical predictions), so you might as well ask: "what is the causal connection between mathematics and human cognition and what measuring device measures mathematical concepts?"

There are various empirically equivalent mathematical descriptions of quantum theory and even more interpretations of them in natural languages. Some interpretations give the wave function ontological status and some don't, but discussions about ontological interpretations belong - strictly speaking - in the realm of philosophy, not in mathematical physics. On the other hand, philosophical thinking cannot and should not be excluded from study of these phenomena, what is important is interdisciplinary work to gain better understanding of and participating in nature.

[rrneck]

86. It's always the same.

I had an ongoing debate with a fellow once who was trying to bring me to Christ. I would ask him a question about the factual nature of the object of his faith and in reply I would get great blocks of quotes written by somebody else and suggestions to contact others who could "explain it better than him". He was a nice guy and he meant well but I have encountered that same attitude with every true believer of every faith without fail.

"...wave function is a mathematical form deduced from particle hits in measurement device..."

This does not look like me or any other person I have ever met:


Nor does this:


The papers presented by you in this thread as evidence are evidence of nothing that has actually occurred outside the skulls of those being measured. That website asserts a measurable relationship between quantum wave function and human cognition. It asserts a measurable relationship between neuroscience and quantum physics and uses a lot of word salad and inscrutable mathematical equations to measure how people feel about stuff.

"In that sense wave function "exists" or "is measured" only in the mental processes of theoretical physicists and those reading their theories."

Yes, they made it up. They are trying to predict a phenomena that has not yet been actually observed and measured. It is telling that you would add, "and those reading their theories". Spoken like a true acolyte.

The popular notion that quantum mechanics seems to rest entirely on a foundation of observational determination makes it uniquely suited to adaptation into a religion. Every religion functions the same way. A group of people feel the same way about something and that sense of cohesion gives them emotional predictability. It's part of being human and vital to the function of human societies. But it ain't science. Unfortunately, confusing the two turns scientists into high priests to whom the faithful would turn to explain the mysteries of something they all feel is happening within themselves.

New religions begin as offshoots of older religions. That's why the flakier and more avaricious of the lot of quantum consciousness gurus are associating QC with eastern religions, meditation, zen practice, channelling and the like. They sure as hell can't attach science to anything fundamentalist Christianity has to offer.

What is more troubling is that even at this early stage of development, this new religion of QC is already beginning to establish a moral heirarchy which could eventually become a tool for opression. From the article in the OP, "The rise of quantum consciousness could be the biggest step our species has taken since it came down from the trees." And those who have not taken that step won't be as advanced I guess. They might not even be as human. If they don't feel the effects of quantum waves sufficently, they should probably be banished from our sight - or worse.

From your post #36: "Well let's just say that I see no problem defining a society that is behaving like a cancer tumour and sawing of the branch that it is sitting on suffering from a collective mental disorder."

Please be careful.

[Goblinmonger]

6. I need to write a book about my new quantum diet

or some other bullshit that people will buy to make me some money.

[Silent3]

7. This same crap got posted in the Science forum

It's just as crappy posted here.

[onager]

8. Next time, ask a real quantum physicist...

...like Victor J. Stenger, who worked on the teams that discovered the quark and other sub-atomic particles. He also holds a Ph.D in Philosophy and teaches that subject:

Amit Goswami...argues that the existence of paranormal phenomena is supported by quantum mechanics: "...psychic phenomena, such as distant viewing and out-of-body experiences, are examples of the nonlocal operation of consciousness...Quantum mechanics undergirds such a theory by providing crucial support for the case of nonlocality of consciousness."

Since no convincing, reproducible evidence for psychic phenomena has been found, despite 150 years of effort, this is a flimsy basis indeed for quantum consciousness...

The conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, promulgated by Bohr and still held by most physicists, says nothing about consciousness.

It concerns only what can be measured and what predictions can be made about the statistical distributions of ensembles of future measurements. As noted, the wave function is simply a mathematical object used to calculate probabilities.

Mathematical constructs can be as magical as any other figment of the human imagination - like the Starship Enterprise or a Roadrunner cartoon...

Furthermore, interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales - especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function.

Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/

[Odin2005]

9. I am SOOO SICK of Quantum Woo like this.

Typical BS based on popular misunderstandings of QM.

[tama]

10. Subject

A nice blog on the quantum mind hypothesis
http://www.quantum-mind.co.uk/

The only real counter argument against quantum mind - coherence breaking up in warm and wet systems - has collapsed with evidence of proteins behaving quantum mechanically and especially photosynthesis involving quantum computation.

Hypothesis of reductionism to classical mechanisms is falsified with e.g. placebo anomaly.


Mediocracy, IMO, is not about human character but a product of modern educational system that is meant to produce more clogs in the machine:


"Imants Baruss

Kings University College, London, Ontario

Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15, No. 10-11, 2008, pp. 277-92

The paper comprises a study that relates (1.) the degree to which people are rational in their approach to the world, (2.) the degree to which they are curious, and (3.) their score on conventional measures of intelligence, to three main categories of belief system. These are (1.) conventional organised religions, (2.) materialism and (3) transcendental concepts involving mystical experience, altered states of consciousness and belief in such concepts as ESP and reincarnation.

The study suggests that those with transcendental beliefs are the most rational, most curious and open to new ideas and also the most intelligent of the three groups. This, of course, contradicts the normal view of the scientific community that only the unintelligent and deluded are involved with such ideas. It is further suggested that many in the scientific community are closet transcendentalists, who disguise these beliefs, for fear of damaging their careers. The study suggests that the followers of conventional religions are the least rational, curious or intelligent, with the materialists in the middle position.

Examples of common transcendental experiences or beliefs encountered by Baruss, included mystical and out-of-body experiences, belief that the physical was an extension of the mental, and that consciousness was the ultimate reality, belief in ESP and reincarnation, in understanding superior to rational thought, and an emphasis on the inner experiental world, altered states of consciousness and self-transformation. Perhaps not surprisingly, when the transcendental group were asked about their religious affiliations, they tend to classify these as 'own beliefs'. The importance of consciousness increased across the groups from materialists to transcendentalists. Materialists tended to regard consciousness as a by-product of brain processes, for religious believers it is important, and for transcendalists, it may be viewed as the ultimate reality.

In tests designed to indicate a person's interest in rationally understanding the world, there was a correlation between higher scores and transcendental beliefs. The transcenentalists scored 50% above those with conventional religious beliefs and one eighth about the materialists. In tests designed to indicate appreciation of sensory impression and general openness to experience, the transcendentalists scored about 10% above religious believers and about 20% above materialists. Other tests suggested that the transcendental group had a less 'up tight' approach to life being less worried about social recognition, risk avoidance or being well organised. Separate studies of IQ suggested a lower IQ amongst conventional believers, a middling IQ amongst conventional materialists, and higher IQs amongst the transcendental group. The authors remark on the cognitive deficits hypothesis, widespread in the scientific community, that those with transcendental beliefs are irrational or stupid. This view claims support from a 1983 study (Tobacyk & Milford), but this seems to refer more to what might be termed superstition, such as thinking that 13 is unlucky.

Finally, a survey of participants in the 1996 Tuscon II 'Towards a science of consciousness' conference showed a high score for transcendental beliefs. The author remarks on how little this was reflected in the relevant published literature. He reminds us that it can be difficult to pursue academic programmes, obtain tenured positions, receive funding, publish in mainstream journals or supervise graduate students without subscribing to the materialist agenda. The discrepancy between the 1996 study and the published literature is taken to suggest that there are a good number of closet transcendentalists in the scientific community."
http://www.quantum-mind.co.uk/philosophy-2-c133.html

[Igel]

14. Counterarguments come in two varieties.

The first is positive: Evidence taken to support thesis I actually is shown to support thesis II, meaning that it is actually evidence against thesis I. Thesis I is falsified, whether because it's made a failed prediction (which produces evidence) or because independently adduced evidence can't be accommodated.

The second is negative: Evidence taken to support thesis I is shown to be irrelevant to thesis I. It may not support any argument, or it may simply be unrelated. This doesn't falsify thesis I, it makes it simply unsupported.

The usual recourse when an argument is unsupported is to see where the evidence takes you: So you might reject thesis I, if sufficiently open minded, and accept thesis II. A second recourse is to continue to believe thesis I, but then it's out of the realm of science and into the realm of religion.

Note that I have no beef with religion. It has its own standards for evidence, and I've seen such "evidence" used to both falsify claims as well as to undercut support for claims. But the types of evidence are utterly disparate.

What's scary is when a believer will constantly try to find physical evidence to support a belief so as to move that belief from religion to science; they make claims and it all sounds so scientific, except that science tends to revise some "facts" from time to time, updating what it knows as it learns more and proves or disproves facts and theories. But then when the evidence is knocked out from under a religious claim and the evidence points elsewhere, believes don't treat that claim as a scientific thesis--they slip it back into religious garb and go seeking a way to keep their theory unchanged but with new evidence. This is disingenuous when a fundie Xian does it, adducing great archeological evidence, stripped of context and provided with extreme angular momentum, to support some passage in the OT only to have it all fall to pieces (possibly because things to fall apart with sufficient angular momentum). It's disingenuous here, too.

[tama]

18. What is interesting and fun

in Quantum Theory is that it does not dictate that one interpretation of it is correct and others incorrect. Or even mathematical descriptions, as long as they are empirically sound.

Interpretation of QT is a Schrödinger's cat. And IMO that is a good thing, to avoid pitfalls of naive realism and objectivism in both science and religion (ie. MY interpretation/viewpoint of naive realism and objectivism is the only correct and all others incorrect and if you don't believe me I'll call you bad names).

But then again, if the TOE reduces to algebraic number theory (cf. Matrix, excellent article by Chalmers: http://consc.net/papers/matrix.html) as Einstein hoped for:

"The Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics hypothesizes that the state of the universe evolves smoothly through time with no collapsing of quantum wavefunctions. One problem for the Copenhagen interpretation is to precisely define wavefunction collapse. Einstein maintained that quantum mechanics is physically incomplete and logically unsatisfactory. In "The Meaning of Relativity," Einstein wrote, "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory for the representation of reality. But nobody knows how to find the basis for such a theory." If time, space, and energy are secondary features derived from a substrate below the Planck scale, then Einstein's hypothetical algebraic system might resolve the EPR paradox (although Bell's theorem would still be valid). Edward Fredkin in the Fredkin Finite Nature Hypothesis has suggested an informational basis for Einstein's hypothetical algebraic system. If physical reality is totally finite, then the Copenhagen interpretation might be an approximation to an information processing system below the Planck scale."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

...then I have more than suspicion that the basis for such a theory have been found, but by an academic outcast held incommunicado by the mainstream scientific community. That aside, reduction to math or number theory raises also interesting philosophical questions that among others Gödel (who BTW also refuted the mind=brain credo) gave much thought to. Reading now this book: http://www.amazon.com/Infinity-Mind-Rudy-Rucker/dp/0691001723

[iris27]

13. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means

what you think it means."

[gcomeau]

15. Arg!

I just got finished writing up why another of this guy's forays into offering silly unfounded explanations of how the universe works were totally wrong ( http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/2010/04/people-dont-understand-probability.html ) and now I pop over here and there's another one!

It could be that our brain no more produces consciousness than the radio produces the symphony that comes through its speakers.

No, it could bloody well not be the case. That's ridiculous and totally unfounded fantasizing that conflicts with everything we know about consciousness.

The symphony, too, disappears when the radio is shut down, yet we know that it's not produced by the radio.

And when you tinker with the radio the flute player in the fourth row of the orchestra starts playing a different composition than everyone else... and the first violinist suddenly forgets how to play at all and starts complaining she ... and then the conductor gets confused and starts trying to direct traffic instead of musicians...

Oh wait... none of that happens. But if we start poking around in someone's brain we can have all kinds of effects on how that person's consciousness operates. Because the brain isn't a damn receiver of consciousness, it's the producer of consciousness. And if you mess with the machinery you alter the product.

[trotsky]

17. Brilliant response. n/t

:applause:

[tama]

19. What

does brain need consciousness for? If consciousness is just a superfluous epiphenomenon of brain with no causal power, why produce it?

The receiver analogy is OK with poking. If you poke around a TV receiver, it can change to another channel/wavelength (cf. psychadelic drugs) or shut down (cf. anaesthetic drugs).

In terms of empirical science, the hypothesis that brain is the producer of consciousness implies that it is falsified by evidence of mental causation - such as placebo effect.

In terms of computation, classical computers tilt with infinite regress, AFAIK quantum computers dont. In human computation persistent meditation of infinite regress can lead to an "enlightened" experience, but usually short attention span takes care of the infinite regress problem - or belief in Immovable Mover myth.

[gcomeau]

21. Oh for cripes sake...

...why do some people feel the need to debate with a thesaurus in their lap, thus producing the type of "word salad" that has just assaulted me in this post? I mean, I am not one to bash the possession of a decent vocabulary but the point of developping one of those is to know how to use the words properly and fluently, not just to throw them out because they have lots of syllables and sound impressive and appear to have kind of the same meaning as a much simpler and more appropriate term that should have been used in the first place.

"a superfluous epiphenomenon of brain "???

You do realize that for consciousness to be an "epiphenomenon" of "brain" then "brain" would have to be a primary phenomenon? How the hell is "brain" a phenomenon? And what the heck makes consciousness "superfluous"? Superfluous to WHAT?

Your "poking" example misses the point completely. We're not dealing with just "changing channels", we're dealing with the workings of consciousness clearly being altered by material intervention in the brain. As in, the channel hasn't changed, the same people are still playing, but mid-song half the musicians in the orchestra go tone deaf and three of them have strokes and fall on the ground suffering convulsions because you kicked your radio.

And what in the world is this even supposed to mean:

"In terms of empirical science, the hypothesis that brain is the producer of consciousness implies that it is falsified by evidence of mental causation - such as placebo effect."

I've read that three times desperately searching for some point it is supposed to be making, and I'm failing miserably. The existence of the placebo effect means.... I have no idea. That consciousness isn't a product of the brain I would assume, although I cannot for the life of me figure out why you might expect people to think this.

And I refuse to even attempt to decipher what you thought you were trying to accomplish with those last two sentences..

[tama]

23. Word salad

English is not my native language but I can understand you are angry. Too much Greek for you ("Graeca sunt, non leguntur" as the old schoolmasters used to say)? :)

Despite your firm belief in eliminative materialism (explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism) this mental process does not speak to a brain but to a mental process involving feelings (like anger) that according to common experience make attempts at intelligent discussion futile.

In primitive English: Me consciouss human, you mindless zombie. ;)

[BurtWorm]

16. So now we don't need to go to pyschiatrists anymore.

Instead we'll go to quantum mechanics.

:crazy:

[tama]

20. As it happens

The latest issue of NeuroQuantology is dedicated to 'Quantum Paradigms of Psychopathology':
http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/issue/view/35

And yes, there is a lot of valid criticism against current state of psychiatry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychiatry

[darkstar3]

28. NeuroQUANTOLOGY??

:spray:...:rofl:...:wtf:

[laconicsax]

29. Drink.

[darkstar3]

30. Too late, I spilled what I had left. :)

[tama]

33. What is so amusing?

Naming an interdiciplinary journal of neuroscience and quantum theory 'NeuroQuantology'? I must be daft as the joke escapes me.

[Silent3]

35. Now we're getting somewhere. :) n/t

[tama]

38. Well let's get somewhere then

This article seems to confirm my own impressions of the reasons of "the unreasoning and unscientific hostility" towards quantum/fundamental theories:

"Response to the structural argument against physicalism P. Barbara Monetero P. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17, No. 3-4, 2010, pp. 70-83 P. INTRODUCTION: This paper could be viewed as mainly interesting for its shrewd analysis of the underlying reasons for hostility to theories that argue that consciousness is a fundamental or quantum property. PP. The author discusses the arguments of David Chalmers' who favoured an approach to consciousness called 'Russellian monism' after the philosopher, Bertrand Russell. This is the view that physics tells us only about the relationship between things and not about the things themselves, nor the nature of the underlying properties and forces, such as mass and charge. P. However, Montero wonders whether at the quantum level there really is a distinction between the level of the relationship between things and the level of the fundamental properties and forces. She argues that if there were an explanation for what these were, it might be in terms of a further relationship quality, presumably because it is difficult to conceive of anything else. This seems quite logical, but it somewhat evades the fact that, at least in terms of existing scientific knowledge, there does appear to be a level in the universe beyond which there is no further explanation. P. At any rate, Montero is open to discussing the possibility that consciousness is such a fundamental property. She accepts that this can be consistent with the dominant physicalist view of science, if the fundamental level is not actually conscious as such (that would be panpsychism), but is merely a ground for consciousness to arise from, given certain favourable circumstances. P. Montero says that although there is widespread disagreement about how to define physicalism, there is a measure of broad agreement that the features of the world arise from a fundamental physical substrata. Every feature of the world can therefore be traced back, and shown to depend or supervene on fundamental physical properties. From this simple definition, it would appear that any theory of consciousness that arises from the fundamental level is a physicalist-type theory, and does not involve any form of dualism. P. Montero rather shrewdly seems to put her finger on the reason why mainstream thinkers are so unhappy with theories of consciousness that derive from the fundamental. She asks why fundamental properties that are mental should be accounted as non-physical, rather than as part of the physical universe. She says that she thinks that properties related to the mental are not regarded as acceptable parts of the physical world, because if the mental were seen as fundamental, it would have emerged like that from the Big Bang. She thinks that for 'some' this might in turn 'hint' at the existence of a God and further to that a human or mental-related purpose to the universe. P. I think the important point here is not whether or not consciousness as a fundamental does suggest gods or purposes, but the fact that this gives a good idea as to why quantum/fundamental theories arouse, in many quarters, such unreasoning and unscientific hostility. Montero suggests that even researchers who may not be fully aware of the gods/purposes link may pick up on the generally bad reputation of fundamental consciousness and respond in hostile/irrational fashion. P. Montero herself appears to adopt a 'new mysterian' view that consciousness may in fact be beyond human understanding, if only because the nature of the fundamentals as a whole is beyond understanding. However, she wants to leave open the possibility that in the future physics may be able to understand the fundamentals themselves, rather than just the relationships that they govern."
http://www.quantum-mind.co.uk/philosophy-3-c145.html

[Silent3]

54. Day doo doo doo, day dah dah dah...

...that's all I want to say to you. And of course, by your version of what "quantum uncertainty" means, you can't be sure if that's a meaningful response or not.

"Quantum" means everything means whatever you want it to mean, and there are no wrong answers. Ah, how liberating!

[tama]

41. WOW!

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/02/dna-found-to-ha.html

"DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn't be able to. Explanation: None, at least not yet.

Scientists are reporting evidence that contrary to our current beliefs about what is possible, intact double-stranded DNA has the “amazing” ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. Somehow they are able to identify one another, and the tiny bits of genetic material tend to congregate with similar DNA. The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.

Even so, the research published in ACS’ Journal of Physical Chemistry B, shows very clearly that homology recognition between sequences of several hundred nucleotides occurs without physical contact or presence of proteins. Double helixes of DNA can recognize matching molecules from a distance and then gather together, all seemingly without help from any other molecules or chemical signals.

In the study, scientists observed the behavior of fluorescently tagged DNA strands placed in water that contained no proteins or other material that could interfere with the experiment. Strands with identical nucleotide sequences were about twice as likely to gather together as DNA strands with different sequences. No one knows how individual DNA strands could possibly be communicating in this way, yet somehow they do. The “telepathic” effect is a source of wonder and amazement for scientists."

[Jim__]

42. Maybe a function of the electrical charge.

A news article from around the time of the research:

To understand what researchers conjecture is really happening, think of double helixes of DNA as corkscrews. The bases that make up a strand of DNA each cause the corkscrew to bend one way or the other. Double-stranded DNA with identical sequences each result in corkscrews "whose ridges and grooves match up," said researcher Sergey Leikin, a physical biochemist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in Bethesda, Md.

The electrically charged chains of sugars and phosphates of double helixes of DNA cause the molecules to repel each other. However, identical DNA double helixes have matching curves, meaning they repel each other the least, Leikin explained.

The scientists conjecture such "telepathy" might help DNA molecules line up properly before they get shuffled around. This could help avoid errors in how DNA combines, errors that underpin cancer, aging and other health problems. Also, the proper shuffling of DNA is essential to sexual reproduction, as it helps ensure genetic diversity among offspring, Leikin added.

Leikin and his colleagues will detail their findings in the Jan. 31 issue of the Journal of Physical Chemistry B.

Here's a link to the original article in the Journal of Physical Chemistry B, and an excerpt:

We hypothesize that the origin of this recognition may be as follows.15 In-register alignment of phosphate strands with grooves on opposing DNA minimizes unfavorable electrostatic interactions between the negatively charged phosphates and maximizes favorable interactions of phosphates with bound counterions. DNAs with identical sequences will have the same structure and will stay in register over any juxtaposition length. Nonhomologous DNAs will have uncorrelated sequence-dependent variations in the local pitch that will disrupt the register over large juxtaposition length. The register may be restored at the expense of torsional deformation, but the deformation cost will still make juxtaposition of nonhomologous DNAs unfavorable.14 The sequence recognition energy, calculated from the corresponding theory is consistent with the observed segregation within the existing uncertainties in the theoretical and experimental parameters (Supplemental Theory). This energy is 1 kT under the conditions utilized for the present study, but it is predicted to be significantly amplified, for example, at closer separations, at lower ionic strength, and in the presence of DNA condensing counterions.10,15

Presently, we cannot exclude other mechanisms for the observed segregation. For instance, sequence-dependent bending of double helices may also lead to homology recognition by affecting the strand-groove register of two DNA molecules in juxtaposition. The juxtaposition of bent, nonhomologous DNAs may also be less energetically favorable under osmotic stress, since it may reduce the packing density of spherulites. In addition, formation of local single-stranded bubbles and base flipping23 may cause transient cross-hybridization between the molecules, as proposed to explain Mg2+ induced self-assembly of DNA fragments with the same sequence and length.16 We consider it to be rather unlikely in this instance, since the probability of bubble formation in unstressed linear DNA of the studied length is very small in contrast to the case where topological strain is relieved by bubble formation in small circular DNA molecules.23 Furthermore, bubble formation would distort the cholesteric order of spherulites and we see no evidence of this in spherulites composed of a single type of DNA molecule.

[tama]

43. Fascinating

though largely over my head. AFAIK those conjectures and hypothesis need not essentially contradict that the phenomenon seems to be predicted by this theory which gives a deeper level explanation:

"The model of DNA as topological quantum computer assumes that nucleotides and lipids are connected by ordinary or "wormhole" magnetic flux tubes acting as strands of braid and carrying dark matter with
large Planck constant. The model leads to a new vision about TGD in which the assignment of nucleotides to quarks allows to understood basic regularities of DNA not understood from biochemistry."

"2.10 DNA as topological quantum computer
I ended up with the recent model of tqc in bottom-up manner and this representation is followed also in the text. The model which looks the most plausible one relies on two specific ideas.
1. Sharing of labor means conjugate DNA would do tqc and DNA would "print" the outcome of tqc in terms of mRNA yielding amino-acids in the case of exons. RNA could result also in the case of introns but not always. The experience about computers and the general vision provided by TGD suggests that introns could express the outcome of tqc also electromagnetically in terms of standardized field patterns as Gariaev's findings suggest (Gariaev et al., 2002). Also speech would be a form of gene expression. The quantum states braid (in zero energy ontology) would entangle with characteristic gene expressions. This argument turned out to be based on a slightly wrong belief about DNA: later I learned that both strand and its conjugate are transcribed but in different directions. The symmetry breaking in the case of transcription is only local which is also visible in DNA replication as symmetry breaking between leading and lagging strand. Thus the idea about entire leading strand devoted to printing and second strand to tqc must be weakened appropriately.
2. The manipulation of braid strands transversal to DNA must take place at 2-D surface. Here dancing metaphor for topological quantum computation (Parsons, 2004) generalizes. The ends of the space-like braid are like dancers whose feet are connected by thin threads to a wall so that the dancing pattern entangles the threads. Dancing pattern defines both the time-like braid, the running of classical
tqc program and its representation as a dynamical pattern. The space-like braid defined by the entangled threads represents memory storage so that tqc program is automatically written to memory as the braiding of the threads during the tqc. The inner membrane of the nuclear envelope and cell membrane with entire endoplasmic reticulum included are good candidates for dancing halls. The 2-surfaces containing the ends of the hydrophobic ends of lipids could be the parquets and lipids the dancers. This picture seems to make sense. One ends up to the model also in topdown manner.
1. Darwinian selection for which standard theory of self-organization provides a model, should apply also to tqc programs. Tqc programs should correspond to asymptotic selforganization patterns selected by dissipation in the presence of metabolic energy feed. The spatial and temporal pattern of the metabolic energy feed characterizes the tqc program - or equivalently - sub-program call.
2. Since braiding characterizes the tqc program, the self-organization pattern should correspond to a hydrodynamical flow or a pattern of magnetic field inducing the braiding. Braid strands must correspond to magnetic flux tubes of the magnetic body of DNA. If each nucleotide is transversal magnetic dipole it gives rise to transversal flux tubes, which can also connect to the genome of another cell.
3. The output of tqc sub-program is probability distribution for the outcomes of state function reduction so that the sub-program must be repeated very many times. It is represented as four-dimensional patterns for various rates (chemical rates, nerve pulse patterns, EEG power distributions...) having also identification as temporal densities of zero energy states in various scales. By the fractality of TGD Universe there is a hierarchy of tqc's corresponding to p-adic and dark matter hierarchies. Programs (space-time sheets defining coherence regions) call programs in shorter scale. If the self organizing system has a periodic behavior each tqc module defines a large number of almost copies of itself asymptotically. Generalized EEG could naturally define this periodic pattern andeach period of EEG would correspond to an initiation and halting of tqc. This brings in mind the periodically occurring sol-gel phase transition inside cell near the cell membrane.
4. Fluid flow must induce the braiding which requires that the ends of braid strands must be anchored to the fluid flow. Recalling that lipid mono-layers of the cell membrane are liquid crystals and lipids of interior mono-layer have hydrophilic ends pointing towards cell interior, it is easy to guess that DNA nucleotides are connected to lipids by magnetic flux tubes and hydrophilic lipid ends are stuck to the flow.
5. The topology of the braid traversing cell membrane cannot affected by the hydrodynamical flow. Hence braid strands must be split during tqc. This also induces the desired magnetic isolation from the environment. Halting of tqc reconnects them and make possible the communication of the outcome of tqc.
6. There are several problems related to the details of the realization. How nucleotides A, T, C, G are coded to strand color and what this color corresponds to? The prediction that wormhole contacts carrying quark and antiquark at their ends appear in all length scales in TGD Universe resolves the problem. How to split the braid strands in a controlled manner? High c T super conductivity provides a partial understanding of the situation: braid strand can be split only if the supra current flowing through it vanishes. From the proportionality of Josephson current to the quantity sin(ò2eVdt) it follows that a suitable voltage pulse V induces DC supra-current and its negative cancels it. The conformation of the lipid controls whether it can follow the flow or not. How magnetic flux tubes can be cut without breaking the conservation of the magnetic flux? The notion of wormhole magnetic field saves the situation now: after the splitting the flux returns back along the second space-time sheet of wormhole magnetic field.
To sum up, it seems that essentially all new physics involved with TGD based view about quantum biology enter to the model in crucial manner."

http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/article/view/325/369

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. LOL

You people crack me up.

[gcomeau]

46. THANK you.

A link to the original article. What a novel idea!

Now let's take a quick look at what happens when people get their cutting edge science repoting second hand from popular media instead of getting it from the source:

The Source

" In-register alignment of phosphate strands with grooves on opposing DNA minimizes unfavorable electrostatic interactions between the negatively charged phosphates and maximizes favorable interactions of phosphates with bound counterions. DNAs with identical sequences will have the same structure and will stay in register over any juxtaposition length...."

Leading to...

New Article at one remove... still at least trying to be accurate

"The electrically charged chains of sugars and phosphates of double helixes of DNA cause the molecules to repel each other. However, identical DNA double helixes have matching curves, meaning they repel each other the least, Leikin explained.

The scientists conjecture such "telepathy" might help DNA molecules line up properly before they get shuffled around."

Notice the quotes around the word "telepathy"... as in, THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY WHAT IS HAPPENING, as they JUST FINISHED EXPLAINING.

Leading to...

Totally Clueless Popular Media Account

"...according to known science it shouldn't be able to..."

"...contrary to our current beliefs about what is possible..."

"...No one knows how individual DNA strands could possibly be communicating in this way"...

And various other absurd claims and descriptions all intended to make it look as if DNA is intelligently communicating with other DNA at a distance and engaging in some kind of cooperative behaviour that defies scientific understanding! Since when are electrostatic effects beyond scientific understanding???

And from there we jump to the new age nonsense about disembodied consciousnesses and the brain as a radio receiver and other ridiculousness and tama declaring "WOW!" on the DU religion forum... this is how this kind of absurdity spreads.

[tama]

47. You can't stop it

"Spooky action at distance":

"Amazingly, the forces responsible for the sequence recognition can reach across more than 1 nm of water separating the surfaces of nearest neighbor DNAs in the spherulites. Slight water loss over the equilibration time could reduce the separation from 2 to 3 nm separation expected19,20 at 5% PEG in 0.5 M NaCl. However, the separation must still have been larger than 1 nm, as the DNA remained in the cholesteric phase rather than a columnar phase expected20,22 at smaller distances."


Conclusion ("recognition of unknown origin"):

"However, regardless of the underlying mechanism, the segregation of identical DNAs in highly hydrated cholesteric spherulites provides evidence for homology recognition between intact double helices through physical forces as an intrinsic property of DNA. It is notable that some recognition of unknown origin and pairing between homologous double helices has been proposed as a necessary step preceding double strand breaks in homologous DNA recombination within cells.24-26 Much work remains to be done before we know the mechanism of the recognition observed in the present study and whether this recognition plays any role within the complex cellular environment, but the possibilities are intriguing. Here, our primary goal was to demonstrate homology recognition in a concentrated mixture of two fragments with the same base pair composition and length but different sequences by using physical experiments in a pure electrolytic solution. We hope that this report will catalyze more detailed studies with DNA sequences of different length and nucleotide composition in different environments."

It seems clear that to you all post newtonian science, especially quantum theory and contemporary mathematical physics, is absurd and defies YOUR scientific understanding, as in lack of. That is perfectly understandable, as much of it indeed does sound absurd and it's anything but easy to understand. But any case, making scientific assumptions based purely on your personal inability to understand contemporary science and fundamentalist belief in the 'mind reduces to classical physics' -dogma, is not scientific nor sceptical.

It is clear that your motivation has nothing to do with scientific understanding and respect for science but a political fight to prevent "absurdity spreading", ie. what your dogmatic materialistic world view holds heretical.

You can ridicule all you want and stomp your feet in frustrated fear when your preciouss dogmas crumble in face of scientific progress, you can deny it by hiding your head where the sun don't shine, but you can't stop science. Eppur si muove.

[gcomeau]

48. Nobody is trying to "stop science"

We're trying to stop people like you from butchering it.

[tama]

49. Oh

go play your silly power games elsewhere and take your groupies with you, if you don't have anything scientifically and philosophically relevant to say.

There are lot's of fun role playing games where you can play your imaginary role of 'Guardian of Holy Dogma' against fearsome Butcher Monsters. I heartily recommend keeping your fantasies in realm of fantasy games instead of bothering discussions about science and philosophy of mind with them.

[gcomeau]

50. "Power games"?

The original scientific paper made it quite clear that what we are talking about here is probable electrostatic effects between DNA molecules that are mere nanometers apart. And STILL all you could come back with was a continued insistence that we were talking about "spooky action at a distance" that in some way defies scientific understanding thus justifying your launching off into personal flights of fancy with your own bizarre interpretations of what the implications of Quantum Mechanics actually are.

And apparently anyone calling you on your horseshit is playing "power games". Sure. Whatever you say.

[trotsky]

51. It's funny...

one of the biggest criticisms of science given by the woomeisters is that it supposedly doesn't take criticism well. Yet here you are attempting to correct some basic scientific facts on the issue, and you're getting slammed by someone who isn't taking criticism of woo very well. Insert something about a goose and a gander here.

[darkstar3]

53. You noticed that too, huh?

[tama]

52. Read it again.

On DNA scale nanometers are "amazing" distance as the paper says, not "mere" as you distort it.

The paper does not say anything about "probable electrostatic effects", that is your distortion. They clearly say they don't understand the phenomenon and make just a hypothetical guess - and no problem with that.

And then you have the gall to claim that a jocular quote from Einstein, "spooky action at distance" (notice "" around it in this context?), defies scientific understanding. As if the EPR-paradox (Einstein, Rosen, Podolsky) wasn't a cornerstone of modern physics. And as if molecules could not behave quantum mechanically even in wet and warm surroundings. But I guess that was news to new and you don't believe it anyway?

I don't have "my own bizarre interpretations" of quantum mechanics. Instead of ignoring QT and modern mathematical physics to to avoid need to update scientific understanding from good ole newtonian mechanics - as you seem to do - I like to see what is happening where science is being currently made, the little that I can understand of it. Because real science is actually fun, interesting and fascinating and more weird than even New Age fluffy bunnies can imagine. What I read from real scientists I quote with links for others curious in science to read also. Obviously, you're not having any fun and you show no real interest in science, so why do you bother?

You tell the reason yourself: "fighting against spreading" of heresy to "defend" your dogma. Your use of language reveals that you think in terms of warfare and ideological power games, not in genuine interest in science. Your attitudes, which are part of a wider phenomenon, can also be subjected to scientific scrutiny and explained scientifically. I've quoted such studies here. You act like an angry lab monkey, you get to be studied and analyzed as a lab monkey. So far the study affirms the hypothesis that you show the personality traits that suit best concentration camp guards and witch hunters.

The castle of dogma you think you are defending from heresy has crumbled ages ago. And despite what you believe in your dogmatic fantasy world you are really fighting AGAINST science, not for it.

If you don't have anything interesting to say, which I doubt, I'm done with you and you deserve no more of my attention.

[darkstar3]

55. The most important section of this post can be found here...

I like to see what is happening where science is being currently made, the little that I can understand of it. Because real science is actually fun, interesting and fascinating and more weird than even New Age fluffy bunnies can imagine.

Now, I'd like for you to compare these statements to the fact that you have dismissed the Scientific Method as being subject to an overly reductionist materialistic paradigm.

I'd also like you to audition as a writer for the next incarnation of Star Trek. That way the tradition of geeks watching the show and counting up the number of science fails can continue.

As to the part that I bolded...if you understand so "little" of actual science, then :wtf: are you doing here acting like you're schooling other people on scientific possibilities?

[tama]

62. Little

compared to professionals and especially creative geniouses, as it's just a hobby for me. But more than most laymen - said without any foolish pride and does not make me any better as a human being. I have my faults, getting occationally frustrated and angry, etc. etc. etc.

I recall saying that people who *cough* don't respect empirical results don't respect scientific method. On the other hand, I must say that repeatability is philosophically and scientifically a problematic precondition if made too much of and put above all other criteria.

Repeatability is tied to the usual unilinear psychological experience of time that is secondary to more general geometric time, and there are also other related psychological factors that make it hard to accept where scientific progress is going. It's nothing bad, on the contrary - what to oppose in also human body-mind organisms being able of also quantum computation besides classical processes? Do you seriously insist that we are by necessity more stupid than plants that quantum compute at least in photosynthesis process? Or that if you are absolutely certain that there's nothing quantum-like in you, then everybody else must be like you? No need to respond, but give that a thought if you like.

Keeping repeating the old patterns connected to world view that is no more a functional map of the landscape will lead to much discomfort, as most are beginning to be increasingly aware of. When mechanistic predictability leads to doom with very discomforting propabilistics, unpredictable quantum jumps opening up new possibilities is a friend in need and friend in deed. So yes, my interest in science is not just curiosity but also deeply ethical. "No ought from is" does not entail "No is from ought". We are intentional beings with freedom of choise. Materialistic paradigm cannot explain intentionality but dogmatic belief in materialistic paradigm can make people act like machines.

[darkstar3]

74. ...is exactly what you have to say.

Now please stop confusing actual science with woo.

[tama]

77. Go please your self

I'm not the one calling scientists like Crick and Schrödinger woo because they don't believe in dogma of biogenesis by classical mechanisms alone.

[darkstar3]

78. Equating your misconceptions and construence

with the actual work of Crick and Shrodinger is ridiculous. Attempting to dismiss people who disagree with you by accusing multiple people of being dogmatic doesn't help your case.

Do you intend to continue flailing in the deep end and splashing everybody or are you ready to get out of the pool?

[tama]

82. Disagreement with me

is certainly not enough of evidence of dogmatism. Dogmatic beliefs of certain posters are empirically deduced from dogmatic behaviour and I must admit than from my point of view certain posters or rather, posting style, tends to blur into lynch mob behaviour.

There are other posters who sometimes disagree with the ideas I like to discuss who can have open minded discussions and disagree in civil manner without retorting to ad hominems and woowooing.

Then there are no doubt posters who fall somewhere in between these two categories depending on their mood at the moment.

As for Crick and Schrödinger (and numerous others), calling well founded disbelief in the hypothesis that biogenesis has (and must have!) purely classical explanation (which is near mathematical impossibility) "woowoo" and "lie" is to me a clear sign of antiscientific dogmatism - which no doubt has all to do with fear of the ID-monster in the frame of the epic battle between materialists and creationists - where IMO both sides are wrong and I used to taking flak from both sides of dogma.

Epic battles tend to create attitudes of binary oppositions ("with us or against us") and it is also my impression that those engaged in the fight on either side tend do see those who don't take sides or taking side against the whole silly battle as the worst deserters. I see that as product of cultural conditioning in Aristotelian Law of the Excluded Middle.

[Jim__]

85. What is the basis for the statement that the hypothesis that biogenesis (did you mean ...

... abiogenesis?) has a purely classical explanation is near a mathematical impossibility? I don't believe anyone has sufficient knowledge, at this time, to do the mathematics to make such a claim (although I know some people have made it).

[tama]

89. All I know

such calculations, when made (don't know the technicalities well enough to pass any judgement, I can only refer to "authorities" such as Crick etc.) make such a claim. Haven't heard of any mathematical model that would really support the classical (a)biogenesis.

(I have problem with "abiogenesis" which literally means birth without or regardless of life.)

[rrneck]

90. Woo's not bad.

As long as he doesn't pee on your rug. :)

[Jim__]

91. The calculations that I've seen are usually based on guesswork.

To do those calculations you have to know what the environment was when the move toward life started and how the environment changed as this move progressed. Based on what I've read, no one has that knowledge.

[gcomeau]

56. Oh geez...

On DNA scale nanometers are "amazing" distance as the paper says, not "mere" as you distort it.

"Amazing" does not equal "inexplicable".

And they are not "amazing" distances for electrostatic forces. Those are the scales the electrostatic force works on.

The paper does not say anything about "probable electrostatic effects", that is your distortion. They clearly say they don't understand the phenomenon and make just a hypothetical guess - and no problem with that.

Speaking of a need to read the paper again... how about you try it after you spend some time studying science so you know what you're talking about?

Professional researchers do not make hypothetical "guesses" in official scientific research papers. They present well supported hypotheses. Which their description of the electrostatic effects between DNA molecules was. They also offered TWO OTHER potential mechanisms which could be contributing to the observed behavior, one of which they characterized as unlikely but they included it for completeness. For you to then come along and make the absurd claim that they "don't understand" the phenomena and equate it to "spooky action at a distance" is ludicrous.

[TZ]

59. I'm a scientist...

So don't bother to try to tell me I have no genuine interest in science and I LOATHE the way you are trying to hijack a scientific discovery into supernatural bullshit. I have issues with non-scientists attaching there own personal agendas to data.

[cometogether]

93. Mental illnes is physical. Felons not patients or clients?

Why are people with addictions treated like they have a choice when you can see a physical difference in the brain. Psychsurgery corrects bipolar, eating disorders, violent predispsitions (AOD or something) there is a surgery for alcoholism but it cannot be used. I can though if shock therapy doesn't work. They can converge beams of radiation through the skull and burn off the extra part that needs removing. Why are 50% of our incarcerated people drug related offenders, felons, criminals and not birth defect or genetic mutation challanged patients, sufferers, expiriencers of injustice. Better labels, better results in other countries. Portugal still a success? We can add quantum and put the money saved toward helping the world.

[Jim__]

57. I think you're misreading the conclusion.

It is notable that some recognition of unknown origin and pairing between homologous double helices has been proposed as a necessary step preceding double strand breaks in homologous DNA recombination within cells.

You seem to put an emphasis on the words recognition of unknown origin. My reading of that is that this research was a first step in determining how this pairing between homologous double helices could take place. Of course, this experiment was carried out in an environment much simpler than a living cell; but it does show that electrostatic forces may account for such a pairing.

[tama]

66. That is allways possible

But if I understand you correctly, it seems we interpreted the passage same way:
1) there has been a previous proposal of a recognition of unknown origin
2) this study confirms the proposal and gives empirical data of the phenomenon

As for the phenomenon
1) Electric and electromagnetic fields are the border zone of classical and quantum mechanics - which all in all is still not well understood area. Physics is not complete, no generally accepted unificatory theory etc.
2) This is clearly not a well known classical phenomenon (which are generally well known), otherwise there would be no problems in explaining it inside purely classical context
3) Evidence of quantum phenomena in soft and moist cellular environments (photosynthesis), which prove wrong the former strong presupposition that coherence would break in such environment, is relatively new
4) so it would not be surprising that all professionals have not yet heard of or internalized the new information and still work under the former strong presupposition
5) which prevents from making hypothesis that something quantum mechanical might be involved in biological systems.
6) But as we now know that quantum phenomena occur in biological systems and there is no reason to suppose that they are limited to photosynthesis (there is also other molecular evidence), it is quite natural to suggest that the explanation of this phenomenon may involve quantum mechanics (and/or new physics)
7) especially given that that there are good reasons to suppose that the origin of life involved quantum computing: http://www.quantum-mind.co.uk/origins-of-life-c113.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. lulz

"1) there has been a previous proposal of a recognition of unknown origin "

The mechanisms of how DNA interacts have been well understood for decades. It's all electrostatic interaction. You've got the negative charges on the phosphate backbone repealing each other while forming solvent separated ion pairs with cations in the solution. And you've got base pairs interacting through each other by hydrogen bonding. DNA likes DNA that's similar because you've got more base pair interactions. There's no new DNA interaction being discovered in this paper, it's just advancements in the resolution of how those interactions are measured thanks to fluoresence.

"2) this study confirms the proposal and gives empirical data of the phenomenon"

Right, but it's not new phenomenon. It's electrostatic interactions. Phenomenon that have been understood for hundreds of years.

"1) Electric and electromagnetic fields are the border zone of classical and quantum mechanics - which all in all is still not well understood area. Physics is not complete, no generally accepted unificatory theory etc."

Electricity and electromagnetic fields are either classical, or quantum mechanical, depending on the scale. Faraday worked with it at classical scales a couple hundred years ago. Planck a hundred years ago. Both are well understood.

With something as large as DNA molecules, it's pretty much classical.

"2) This is clearly not a well known classical phenomenon (which are generally well known), otherwise there would be no problems in explaining it inside purely classical context"

Sure it is. Just because you don't know much about electricity or intramolecular interactions, it doesn't mean that other people don't.

"3) Evidence of quantum phenomena in soft and moist cellular environments (photosynthesis), which prove wrong the former strong presupposition that coherence would break in such environment, is relatively new"

Um, the quantum mechanics of photosynthesis is not relatively new. Nor does it have anything to do with being soft or moist.


"4) so it would not be surprising that all professionals have not yet heard of or internalized the new information and still work under the former strong presupposition
5) which prevents from making hypothesis that something quantum mechanical might be involved in biological systems."

Lol, wut?

Your standard professional biologist is going to know far more about quantum mechanics, and specifically how it applies to biology (it applies rarely to biology, even molecular biology), then any given woo woo.

"7) especially given that that there are good reasons to suppose that the origin of life involved quantum computing"

Quantum computing had nothing to do with the origin of life. Your link involves dishonest hacks taking comments out of context.

[tama]

71. Your views don't have much credibility

"With something as large as DNA molecules, it's pretty much classical".

You contradict even yourself:

"Um, the quantum mechanics of photosynthesis is not relatively new. Nor does it have anything to do with being soft or moist."

These studies date from 2007-2010: http://www.quantum-mind.co.uk/protein-c180.html. I would call that relatively new, though there may have been also earlier studies.
I see that I made an error, what I meant was warm and moist. "ROOM TEMPERATURE QUANTUM COHERENCE IN PROTEIN" is pretty warm - and large. That evidence is certainly quite new, from 2010. :)

"Quantum computing had nothing to do with the origin of life. Your link involves dishonest hacks taking comments out of context."

Again, very dogmatic statement and extremely strong accusations than you don't justify in any way. What comments out of what context?

Biogenesis of replicator through classical mechanisms so soon in planetary history is so impropable that even Crick ended up rather believing in alien sperm. Schrödinger was first to suggest quantum phenomena involved in biogenesis in 1944. Yup, that woowoo guy. What is crucial both for photosynthesis and biogenesis is (quantum) computational information efficiency and Grover's algorithm seems to feature in both photosynthesis and biogenesis:

Biogenesis:
"Grover’s algorithm indicates that four bases provides an optimal approach. Patel thinks that this four-base process may have evolved at a later stage, after an initial binary system. The genetic machinery is seen as having the physical components to implement Grover’s algorithm. The genetic code is based on four nucleotides arranged in triplets that code for 20 amino acids. The optimal number (Q) of sampling operations in Grover’s algorithm for a database (N) is given by Q = 1 for N = 4 and Q = 3 for N = 20."

Photosynthesis:
"A quantum coherent system allows sampling in order to direct energy to the lowest energy state. The system is viewed as performing a quantum computation, in which it senses many states simultaneously and from these selects the correct answer. This is seen as analogous to Grover's algorithm, allowing both the discovery of the lowest energy state and the transfer of coherence. This is more efficent than any classical search engine. Protein is seen as providing the structure in which coherence can be preserved and at the same time modulating the coherence as a result of the local dielectric environment."

Now, as
1) electromagnetic fields show electric, magnetic and quantum mechanic aspects depending on the context but not really limited by size or temperature,
2) and DNA molecule is ALL ABOUT EXTREMELY TIGHTLY PACKED INFORMATION both physically and information theoretically
3) it is not at all far fetched but quite self-evident to suggest that quantum computation and something akin to Grover's algorithm would be involved also in the poorly understood phenomenon in question.
4) if so, then as usual in science, new results create new questions about how to relate all this into larger context, ultimately to a TOE that unifies not only relativity and quantum theory but also biology and cognition in terms of mathematical physics. And in the light of history of science it would be actually surprising if such a theory would not be much more radical than Einsteins theory was in the good old days.
5) and if such a theory would contain elements that silly creationists could try to use to defend their believes (by gross misunderstandings of course), that would not be a scientific argument against such a theory but purely political one.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. Your kung woo is no match for my science.

"These studies date from 2007-2010"

Those studies which your woo site misrepresents are indeed recent. But that's beside the point. The quantum mechanical nature of photosynthesis has been understood for some eighty years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-dependent_reactions

"Again, very dogmatic statement and extremely strong accusations than you don't justify in any way. What comments out of what context?"

Everything about "computing" is a fabrication on their part. Perhaps I should have said "lying" instead of taking things out of context.

"1) electromagnetic fields show electric, magnetic and quantum mechanic aspects depending on the context but not really limited by size or temperature,"

A light bulb on simply circuit powered by a battery is entirely classic as far as its physics is concerned.

Whereas an electron in a hydrogen atom is quantum mechanical.

"2) and DNA molecule is ALL ABOUT EXTREMELY TIGHTLY PACKED INFORMATION both physically and information theoretically"

"extreme" is relative to the observer. There's a lot of useless extra crap in DNA.

"3) it is not at all far fetched but quite self-evident to suggest that quantum computation and something akin to Grover's algorithm would be involved also in the poorly understood phenomenon in question."

Ah, the old Creationist argument. Eyeballs are complicated, therefore a magic sky pixie did it.

"4) if so, then as usual in science, new results create new questions about how to relate all this into larger context, ultimately to a TOE that unifies not only relativity and quantum theory but also biology and cognition in terms of mathematical physics. And in the light of history of science it would be actually surprising if such a theory would not be much more radical than Einsteins theory was in the good old days."

If you want a TOE, study physics. This is biochemistry. There are no new physics here, only, at most, applications of known physics to biology.

"5) and if such a theory would contain elements that silly creationists could try to use to defend their believes (by gross misunderstandings of course), that would not be a scientific argument against such a theory but purely political one."

It's not science, or politics, just more woo.

[tama]

75. Just one thing

"There's a lot of useless extra crap in DNA."

This needs to be corrected. The non-coding areas of DNA have language like properties, Zipf's law and Shannon redundancy.

http://ory.ph.biu.ac.il/~tmpsite/PS/mbghpss228.pdf

The rest of your post is, as you say, totally useless crap that deserves no response.

[Jim__]

70. I think we're seeing it differently because of your post #47.

You say: Conclusion ("recognition of unknown origin"):; which seems to emphasize the phrase recognition of unknown origin.

I think the critical phrase is: pairing between homologous double helices has been proposed as a necessary step preceding double strand breaks in homologous DNA recombination within cells.

It sounds like there is a theoretical need for that type of pairing within the cell. This research established that, in a simpler environment, that pairing does indeed take place.

[tama]

72. I think you are correct

but that does not make my emphasis wrong. Put in a wider context (see #71) of recent evidence of quantum coherence in photosynthesis in room temperature and quantum computational information efficiency for biogenesis of replicators, the aspects of the phenomena currently not understood might quite likely be information theoretical and involve quantum computation. At least that approach would seem worth giving a serious try. Any case it would seem weird if the recent evidence mentioned would not be relevant also to this particular phenomenon.

[TZ]

58. Oh lord as a immunological specialist

with more than a passing knowledge of genetics can I say there is nothing "supernatural" about this? There is a lot of biology that is not quite understood but no real scientist is going to look at this data and jump to a woo-woo conclusion. Whomever wrote this article IS NOT a scientifically trained person I expect.
Interesting data but to call it a "telepathic" effect is such pseudoscientific bunk! Why can we not just say its a new and currently not understood phenomena and leave it at that?

[trotsky]

61. "Why can we not just say its a new and currently not understood phenomena and leave it at that?"

Because as much as the woos DESPISE science, they simultaneously CRAVE any legitimacy it can give to their ramblings.

[tama]

64. Supernatural?

Oh gimme a break and get of your high horse. You are the only one speaking about "supernatural" here, which does not speak highly of your understanding of philosophy of science. And BTW I do agree that "telepathic" is a poor choise of word in this context but that's just journalism. No need to lose one's beauty sleep over that.

"New and currently not understood phenomena" (or in one word "anomaly") is what is interesting. Let me ask you this: do you exclude a priori the possibility that the explanation might be quantum mechanical or new physics and that the explanation must be classical, as some people here seem to insist?

[Silent3]

65. Until proven otherwise...

...treating QM as if it's a magic pony for every New Age hope about telepathy, telekinesis, "creating your own reality", etc., IS a matter of superstition, not science.

There's a subtle but important distinction between "a priori" exclusion of this idea or that, and not ranking this idea or that as seriously worth much consideration. It has nothing to do with a "Newtonian" world view, with not having sufficient knowledge or appreciation of QM, to more seriously consider first whether a known phenomena like electrostatic effects explains an anomaly before getting oneself all worked up thinking you've discovered a mystical quantum life force.

[tama]

67. Give the devil a little finger...

You are correct, in a way. If it is accepted that biology and cognition may involve also quantum phenomena, there is no GUARANTEE that it would not open the can of worms that MIGHT lead to "every New Age hope" (that seemingly must be rejected at all costs).

Conversely, there is also no quarantee that the can of worms would lead science to any "New Age hope". There is just no way of knowing and that seems to be the main psychological problem: losing predictability and control.

[Silent3]

68. Dismissing wildly speculative ideas is not "at all costs"

In fact, it's to save the cost (time, not just money) of exploring many numerous likely dead ends.

As much as you want to characterize this as some cabal of short-sighted, close-minded Priests of the Establishment being threatened by unpredictability, it's really about sticking to a paradigm that slowly but surely makes a lot of progress in understanding the world without wasting a lot of time on nonsense.

The scientific community, on the whole, will gladly risk taking longer to find out someone's current crazy idea might be true if it means getting to skip over a thousand other bad ideas and putting their efforts into more productive and rewarding endeavors in the meantime.

It was the same approach that uncovered the unpredictable aspects of QM to begin with, an unpredictability that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means or want it to mean.

[tama]

76. Hmm

I don't think certain posters (extended use of "woo" is a give out) deserve to be called "Priests" as that would require an official position in a dogmatic hierarchy. Trigger happy mob looking for witches to lynch is a better description.

"The scientific community, on the whole, will gladly risk taking longer to find out someone's current crazy idea might be true if it means getting to skip over a thousand other bad ideas and putting their efforts into more productive and rewarding endeavors in the meantime."

That might be true and even understandable to some extend, but the actual truth about scientific community is often much more ugly. Among those who's main talent is the ability to climb up in the hierarchy are also Salieris who have ability to recognize outcast Mozarts but no moral hinderance against making them outcasts in competition for fame and a high position in the hierarchy and/or stealing their ideas.

[darkstar3]

79. Prove it.

You are so adamant about how the scientific community is an ugly hierarchy that is too dismissive of your pet theories, so I want you to prove it. Show me one study that even comes close to providing corroborated and significant evidence of telepathy. Show me how it was dismissed by some "hierarchy". Show me proof that such a hierarchy even exists.

Or you could always admit that telepathy is a fringe hypothesis for good reason and actually, you know, not fuck the scientific method in the ear...

[tama]

83. Sigh

Actually, I was not referring to telepathy issue in the post above but something else.

But since you insist, I've brought up Sheldrake on numerous occations, whose work Maddox (chief editor of a major journal) called in expressis verbis "herecy" and his books "best candidate for book burning".
We've been through this before and I don't see any point of repeating the excercice with you.

I don't know your academic credentials or if you have any. Perhaps (anything is possible) you really don't know even the basics of academic social structure (ie. hierarchy), but that would be astonishing even from you. So your question leaves me in wonder.

I have close ties to local academic community and the mood is not happy there. Both students and personnel are sick and tired of things getting worse and worse. Not just locally but the frustration and anger in academic communities is growing all over the world and manifesting in mass demonstrations, occupations of campus buildings, student revolts but also extra-curricular study circles, wikiversities etc. etc. But that is a subject for another discussion.

[Silent3]

84. Academic prejudices can stand in the way of good new ideas...

...but it's hard for that to happen among scientists for more than a generation with ideas that have true merit. Scientists are far from perfect human beings, and they suffer from ego and stubbornness just like other people, but when you compare how quickly new ideas replace old ideas in science over the last couple of centuries, the time period during which the modern experimental scientific method has taken form and been widely adopted, to the speed and thoroughness that new ideas propagate through the general population, the scientific community, for all of its flaws, is by far much more flexible, innovative, and accepting of change.

We've known about QM for three to four generations of scientists now. If humans have telepathic and telekinetic capabilities, presumably those abilities didn't just begin to manifest during the Reagan administration. There's been a long time over many changings of the guard for such things to be proven, and it hasn't happened yet.

Given the choice between believing that an inter-generational scientific conspiracy of stubbornness or turf protection or whatnot has been keeping the "true" open-minded scientists who favor your brand of quantum mysticism repressed, and that this quantum mysticism isn't making much headway in the scientific world because it's a bunch of bullshit, I'm strongly inclined to guess that it's because the quantum mysticism is bullshit.

If you think you're right, don't whine about how you're not being given a fair chance, work harder at proving yourself under tough standards.

[darkstar3]

87. Thank you...

:thumbsup:

[darkstar3]

88. I still don't see proof.

You've had some time, but no proof has come this way. Sheldrake and his studies do not qualify, as they do not show significant, verifiable, and testable proof of anything he's claiming.

Perhaps you have something else? Something that proves telepathy is being ignored and even downplayed by the scientific community? Perhaps you might do something so simple as proving that there is a hierarchy in the scientific community?

[RagAss]

92. Yep... and if you think you produce your own thoughts...try stopping them !

[Dorian Gray]

94. I don't think I understood

a word of that.

:blush:

[pokerfan]

96. You aren't supposed to

it's scientific sounding language designed to obfuscate rather than illuminate.

[Odin2005]

97. Woo Alert!