Quantum theory isn't needed to explain consciousness

If I wasn't an atheist I would have called out Thank God! when i read the following passages in Christof Koch's book, "The Feeling of Life Itself: Why Consciousness Is Widespread but Can't Be Computed."

Koch, who is President and Chief Scientist of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, doesn't see any need to invoke mysterious quantum phenomena when attempts to understand consciousness are being undertaken.

As I noted recently, it irritates me when someone -- who almost always isn't a scientist -- tries to inject quantum theory into a discussion of meditation, consciousness, or such. As Koch says below, it is extremely unlikely (though not impossible) that quantum mechanics influences brain functions.

I'm enjoying Koch's latest book and will have more to say about it when I've read more of it. Here's what he had to say on the subject of quantum mechanics and consciousness.

That a conscious observer is required to convert the superposition of states of a quantum system into the single observable outcome has always troubled physicists. If QM [quantum mechanics] is really a fundamental theory of reality, it shouldn't need to invoke conscious brains and measuring devices. Instead these macroscopic objects should emerge naturally from the theory.

Many solutions have been proposed, but none have found acceptance. It is this dilemma at the root of such a successful theory of reality that has prompted Roger Penrose, a brilliant cosmologist, to propose a quantum gravity theory of consciousness that remains popular with the public.

Precious little evidence supports the idea that the brain exploits macroscopic quantum mechanical effects. Of course, the brain has to obey QM, as when photons of light meet retinal molecules inside photoreceptors. Yet the body's wet and warm operating regime is inimical to quantum coherency and  superposition across neurons.

Today's quantum computer prototypes need extreme vacuum and temperatures close to absolute zero to avoid decoherence, when so-called quantum bits disentangle and become regular bits of classical information theory. That's why quantum computers are so difficult to build.

Furthermore, it has never been properly explained why phenomenological aspects of consciousness or its neurobiological substrate require quantum properties.

I see no need to invoke exotic physics to understand consciousness.

It is likely that a knowledge of biochemistry and classical electrodynamics is sufficient to understand how electrical activity across vast coalitions of neocortical neurons constitute any one experience. But as scientist I keep an open mind. Any mechanism not violating physics might be exploited by natural selection.

Comments

[Mike England]

Wow
That is straight out of the ChopraBot

[Mike England]

http://wisdomofchopra.com/

[Georgy Porgy]

Sparrow entanglement

Gd help us all.

[Jesse]

Using the scientific language du jour has been a recruiting tactic of (mostly indian) religions for quite a long time.

Remember the supposed subatomic particles called "lifetrons" in Autobiography of a Yogi?

I never read it but if I recall correctly God's Whisper, Creation's Thunder was one of these recruiting books full of scientific terms.

[j]

Just throwing this out for the sake of arguing: If someone says that consciousness can't be "computed," how can he say that he understands what consciousness is? The reductionist "if we disconnect this part of the brain" examples don't bowl me over. If cavemen somehow came across a running Toyota Prius in the jungle and cut wires causing it to stop running, can we then say they understand how an internal combustion engine works?

I have to share this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/world/asia/india-women-widows.html
Pretty shocking stuff about family values in India.

[Jesse]

"If cavemen somehow came across a running Toyota Prius in the jungle and cut wires causing it to stop running, can we then say they understand how an internal combustion engine works?"

No, but they would know at least one of the integral components required for the Prius to work and could make it non-functioning. Just like they knew if they smashed a man or tiger or fish in the head it stopped moving. That still applies today.

What does a propaganda piece by the discredited NYT about one of the many numerous and severe social ills in India have to do with consciousness other than that the people there aren't very enlightened, and that if you're still pro-immigration in USA you're literally as close to brain dead as human can be and still survive?

[Michael]

The correct term Is Cave People or Cave Dwellers, wether they live in jungles it not.
I agree that quantum theory has no place explaining consciousness, but I’m amazed at how stuff like that even gets published. And what a headache for the proof reader and editor.

Who really needs to expand the most simple of statements, though paraphrased in translation:
I think therefore I am

[j]

I justify my submission of that NYT link this way. First, to its veracity: If the NYT runs a story that's in any way critical of people of color, you have to assume that the story is balls-on accurate and that the situation is probably worse than was reported. I will admit that the Times' larger theme was likely how government is better at taking care of people than religions or families.

And also, that Indian religion has been saying it "understands" consciousness for nigh on 4000 years now, and yet this is the state of its enlightened treatment of aged grandmothers in 2019. I don't think anyone is close to actually understanding consciousness because any real understanding of that mystery would involve a genuine understanding of the origins of life itself. On this topic, we are still cavemen banging on the hood of that Toyota that fell from the sky. But it's our white caveman privilege to bang away.

[manjit]

Brian wrote: "Koch, who is President and Chief Scientist of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, doesn't see any need to invoke mysterious quantum phenomena when attempts to understand consciousness are being undertaken. As I noted recently, it irritates me when someone -- who almost always isn't a scientist -- tries to inject quantum theory into a discussion of meditation, consciousness, or such."

Albert Einstein wrote: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”

So, the High Priest of Scientism, Maharaj Koch "doesn't see any need to invoke mysterious quantum phenomena when attempts to understand consciousness are being undertaken."? And Brian believes it is "almost always" a non scientific person who "tries to interject quantum theory into........consciousness"?

Well, I am a very simple fellow. With absolutely no academic qualifications or formal education beyond high school. Yes, a very simple fellow am I. So I shall have to keep things simple, and comment only on very simple, unarguable, basic facts that can be checked by even a simpleton like me. Simples!

So correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Koch himself mention the legendary eminent scientist Roger Penrose as a proponent of a connection between quantum physics and consciousness? Is Roger Penrose not a scientist worthy of consideration?

Koch has been trotting out his insistence that HE "sees no need" to look at the quantum level in relation to solving the hard problem of consciousness for at least 10 years now, that I know of. He appears to repeats it here again in his new book, and provides several arguments for why he considers it unlikely.

The problem is, his arguments already appear to be out of date. Here are some links to articles about world renowned scientists and their cutting edge research into quantum biology:

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/quantum-biology-may-help-solve-some-of-lifes-greatest-mysteries-65873

https://www.ted.com/talks/jim_al_khalili_how_quantum_biology_might_explain_life_s_biggest_questions?language=en (thanks to Jen for this video)

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspa.2018.0674

But even more simpler than this cutting edge science from world renowned scientists and organisations, are two simple scientific facts that are pretty much completely inarguable, and checkable by even the simplest person reading this blog:

1) The greatest physicists and founders of quantum physics state that their discoveries are completely mind bending, incomprehensible and that nobody really understands it.

2) The greatest scientists have absolutely no idea what consciousness is or how to explain it. This is called "the hard problem of consciousness" in science. Absolutely no idea whatsoever. They cannot even begin to coherently model it, let alone "explain" it, or create it in a test tube by mixing a bit of this chemical and that (claims that artificial intelligence, AI etc will soon be indistinguishable from human consciousness is a trope that is even further from becoming a reality today than it was 40 years ago when it was being claimed only a few more years before it was to become actualised). Science has progressed absolutely nowhere in the last 2 centuries in "explaining" consciousness. There is still absolutely no idea what it is, or if it even exists.....so immaterial and elusive it is :). This has led hard nosed materialists to propose such absurd notions as consciousness does not even exist, or that puppets have consciousness. This is where intellectual loops of logic, based on unexamined and deep rooted ideologies such as reductionist materialism, can lead you. Some, like Koch or David Lane, live in a perpetual never never land that has existed for centuries of "promissory materialism", where the promise that an all-encompassing materialist explanation for all the mysteries of consciousness (and creation) are just round the corner, you must believe because we are scientists, the intelligentsia, and you are all just fools. It's coming, along with those conscious AIs we've been working on. If it's not this part of the brain generating consciousness, then it will be many parts working together. Just hang on in there, we've almost got it cracked. Have FAITH in science."

So, as a very simple fellow, with these 2 unarguable statements about the current scientific knowledge we have, I really find it hard to understand why we should take Koch's claim he personally "sees no need" to invoke the quantum to explain consciousness? As we have no real understanding of the implications of quantum physics, and no scientific explanation AT ALL for consciousness, how could he possibly know?

Ironically, so incoherent (and, outdated, as it is based purely on Newtonian physics) is the reductive materialist ideology, they wish to reduce all consciousness down to matter, but with immense cognitive dissonance wish to distance themselves from the deepest understanding of matter that we have, quantum physics.

It actually here become clear, even to an uneducated and unpublished simpleton like me, that what we are dealing with here is not science, but an ideology. One that seeks to drive out "mystery" from all aspects of our existence, even though mystery remains ever present. Because quantum physics is, by admission of the very founders of this science, a mystery and something we do not understand, reductionist ideologues like Koch and Brian eagerly distance themselves from connecting it to consciousness, even despite cutting edge scientific research suggesting otherwise.

Taking a step back and taking a meta-glance at the history of philosophy and science, one is struck at the various ridiculous world views and theories that have been proposed, all deeply rooted in ideological and intellectual arrogance.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Max Planck

[Jesse]

Good God Manjit. Look at all the charlatans talking about quantum this and quantum that and then get the point. The word is over used and misused so much.

Does any part of quantum theory in any way relate to consciousness? Yes, necessarily. But the word is used as an SEO keyword now to sound modern and relevant. Knowing jack shit about quantum anything, I could take 10 minutes to learn the basics and add it to flavor spiritual writings like ya boi Deepak Chopra. "The Double slit Experiment and the 8fold Path: How Quantum Thinking Offers Contentment as Robots Become God"

"claims that artificial intelligence, AI etc will soon be indistinguishable from human consciousness is a trope"

Oh no. Not a TROPE!

No AI won't be indistinguishable. It'll be very different in every way. AI will be superior and cold and it won't have any need to bow to our sappy sentiment of feeling special and magical.

"You just understand what REAL consciousness is maaaaaan. I'm an enigma duuuude. I'm like divine and stuff." *Bong rips massive pile of DMT powder

[manjit]

"Yet the body's wet and warm operating regime is inimical to quantum coherency and  superposition across neurons."

Uh oh!:

https://m.phys.org/news/2019-12-surfing-quantum-protein-revisited.html