Is Superposition of Thoughts Possible in the Human Brain and in Nature?

[nannoh]

This is just an idea I had to do with shared thoughts that can be found among groups of people. When people share an experience there is bound to be shared thoughts on the experience. Could the fact that similarly configured pulses of neuronal firing in the brain and nervous systems (ie: thoughts pertaining to a shared incident or experience) of various people be construed to be superposition of thought?

Further to that, could the flavour of one blueberry in a field of blueberries be considered superpositioned among all the blueberries in the field? With this idea I mean could the reoccurance of the same minerals, flavonoids or chlorophyll and so on in each plant and fruit be called an occurrence or form of the superpositioning of these elements? Or, does the term superposition only belong to the study of quantum mechanics?

 

[nannoh]

I can see in the definition of Superposition as applied to linear systems that there is some connection to what I have proposed in this thread.

For linear physical quantities, this implies that the net result at a given place and time caused by two or more independent phenomena is the sum of the results which would have been caused by each phenomenon individually. Consequently, it is possible to analyze the behavior of linear physical systems by considering the behavior of each component of the system separately, and then summing the separate results to find the total result.

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

Its a kind of a sum of the parts equation. But are thoughts considered to be linear?

 

[nannoh]

I don't know if its happened where you have been thinking about phoning a friend and then they call you at the same second you reach for the phone. Is that a superposition of thought?

How about when you're walking along with a friend and suddenly you've come up with a thought about something and as you voice your thought, your friend is saying the exact same words and idea. Associative thought processes or superposition of thought?

Sometimes you can explain these coincidental occurences by way of logical means such as "the friends think alike" or "the fools seldom differ" or "this is free associative patterning that only an observer would recognize as being related". But then there are those moments where so many things happen at the same time, as though we all had the same thought. Is it akin to the event of the superposition of a subatomic particle?

 

[nannoh]

Apparently when people view this thread there is an immediate superposition of thought and no need to write a single word!:rofl:

 

[PIT2]

Take a look at this one:

Replicable functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence of correlated brain signals between physically and sensory isolated subjects.

Richards TL, Kozak L, Johnson LC, Standish LJ.

University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Objectives:
Previous electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiments have suggested that correlated neural signals may be detected in the brains of individuals who are physically and sensorily isolated from each other. Functional MRI and EEG methods were used in the present study in an attempt to replicate these findings. Design/settings: Subjects were electrically and magnetically shielded because of the characteristic surroundings of the scanner room. During the experiment, the nonstimulated subject was placed in the scanner with sensory isolating goggles covering the subject's eyes. The stimulated subject was placed 30 feet away and sat in front of a video monitor that presented an alternating schedule of six stimulus-on/stimulus-off conditions. The stimulus- on condition consisted of a flickering checkerboard pattern whereas the stimulus-off condition consisted of a static checkerboard. Stimulus-on/-off conditions were presented in the sequence on/off/on/off/on/off. The duration of these intervals was randomly assigned but consistently provided a total of 150 seconds of flicker and 150 seconds of static. Sessions were repeated twice to assess possible replication of the phenomenon. Outcome measures: Changes in fMRI brain activation (relating to blood oxygenation) and EEG signals were measured in the nonstimulated subjects. Changes occurring during stimulus-on conditions were statistically compared to changes occurring during the stimulus-off conditions.

Results:
Statistically significant changes in fMRI brain activation and EEG signals were observed when comparing the stimulus-on condition to the stimulus-off condition in nonstimulated subjects (p < 0.001, corrected for multiple comparisons). For fMRI, these changes were observed in visual brain areas 18 and 19 (Brodmann areas). One of the subjects replicated the results.

Conclusions:
These data replicate previous findings suggesting that correlated neural signals may be detected by fMRI and EEG in the brains of subjects who are physically and sensorily isolated from each other.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16398586&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Pretty amazing stuff.

 

[nannoh]

Take a look at this one:
Pretty amazing stuff.

Thanks PIT2. I never thought to engage the neurosciences in consideration of this idea.

Here's a similar experiment performed by one of the contributors in the one you posted.

Standish LJ,
Kozak L,
Johnson LC,
Richards T.
Bastyr University/University of Washington Consciousness Science Laboratory, Bastyr University, Kenmore, WA 98028, USA. ljs@bastyr.edu
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether correlated event-related potentials (ERPs) can be detected between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects. DESIGN AND SETTING: Simultaneous digitized electroencephalograms (EEGs) were recorded from the occipital area in pairs of human subjects placed in sound attenuated rooms separated by 10 meters. One person relaxed in one of the rooms while the other received visual stimulation while in the other room. Prior to each experiment, members of the pair were randomly designated as sender and receiver. Sessions were subsequently repeated with subjects reversing their roles. Previous to each session, the sender was instructed "to attempt sending an image/thought." The receiver was instructed "to remain open to receive any image/thought from his/her partner." Alternating stimulus-on/stimulus-off conditions were presented throughout the session to the sender, while a stimulus-off condition was presented to the receiver. SUBJECTS: Thirty-seven (37) female, and 23 male subjects (n = 60; 30 pairs) participated in the study. Subjects knew each other well and claimed to have previous experience of being emotionally/psychologically connected to one another. OUTCOME MEASURES: A Runs test was applied to compare EEG "hits" in the receiver's EEG during the sender' stimulus-on condition versus sender's stimulus-off conditions. Test results at p < 0.01 were considered evidence of correlated brain signals. Pairs in whom at least one member had significant results were invited back for replication. RESULTS: Of the 60 subjects tested, 5 (4 women/1 man) showed significantly higher brain activation (p < 0.01) during their sending partner's stimulus-on condition as compared to stimulus-off condition. Using the Stouffer z meta-analytic method all receiver EEG results across all 60 subjects were combined by transforming the individual session p values into z scores. Data analyses showed overall significant results for EEG data recorded during the flickering condition (z =-3.28, p = 0.0005) as well as nonsignificant results for data recorded during the static condition (z = 0.35, p = 0.64). Four pairs participated in a replication experiment during which one pair replicated the effect. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that in some pairs of human subjects a signal may be detected in the brain of a distant member of the pair when the brain of the other member is visually stimulated. These data support the findings of similar studies performed in seven laboratories reported in the peer-reviewed literature since 1963. Research in this area should now proceed with investigation of its physical and biologic mechanism, its generalizability to varying populations and relationships, and its clinical application.
PMID: 15165411 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=15165411

The terms are too loose in these abstracts to use as proof of superposition of thought. But the abstracts are well within the bounds of my study (which is confined to the confines of this forum:uhh: )

There is "brain activity" in the isolated subject (who is in the fMRI) when their "sending partner" was exposed to "stimulus-on" conditions. But the brain activity could just be increased blood flow or sugar consumption. The type of activity is not specified.

And the type of "coincidence" or "shared thought I have already described is much more specific in nature. As in when you reach for the phone to call someone and they are dialing at the same time as you so that the result is no ring! Just your friend tentatively saying "hello?" at the same time as you.

I don't know if this example is one of "superposition" of thought or not. This example entails thinking of a friend you haven't seen in years then, out of the blue, they are either right in front of you or you get news they are in town. This is less specific than the thought of phoning someone or the thoughts that occur simultaneously between pairs. But it generally fits with the idea that the brain is a very sensitive sensory organ. The thought you have of the friend may be triggered by the brain's sensory ability to detect a well known figure in your life being in your vicinity. Does this sort of sensory feat include superposition of thought?

Let me figure out what a thought is before I go ga ga nuts with the word "superposition" because superposition means, and I quote

the summation of probability distributions that represent possible states of a system.

http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-glossary.htm

so it really is nothing magical or metaphysical its just a method of determining distribution in possible states of a system. Applied to "thought" it means we are trying to find out if there is a probable distribution of specific thoughts that would demonstrate a possible state or network of shared thought(s).

I doubt that "on-stimulus" produces much of a specific thought. I doubt that a letter or number, star or square will generate a specific enough of a thought to prove that it can exist, simultaneously, in an isolated subject.

I'll have to come back to this to go over what a "thought" is, in terms of its physical nature. As far as I know it is electrical.

 

[PIT2]

And the type of "coincidence" or "shared thought I have already described is much more specific in nature. As in when you reach for the phone to call someone and they are dialing at the same time as you so that the result is no ring! Just your friend tentatively saying "hello?" at the same time as you.

I have a twin brother and we think and say the same thing at the same moment all the time. One very odd such a shared thought(odd because i can't explain it like i can the twin ones) happened to me maybe a year ago. I think i posted it in the skepticism forum in some telepathy or psychic topic. Basicly a friend asked me a question about who he saw that day, and before he finished the question i blurted out the answer without thinking, it just popped in my head. The answer was available to my mind as a ordinary memory from that moment(as if i had seen the event myself), and i could visualise at what location he saw what person (a politician waiting at a pedestrian stoplight in a city).

I'll have to come back to this to go over what a "thought" is, in terms of its physical nature. As far as I know it is electrical.

Perhaps, but if these peoples brains represent their thoughts, and are partially in superposition witheachother, then it looks like it violates the information transfer obstacle, which supposedly cannot occur through quantum nonlocality.

 

[nannoh]

I have a twin brother and we think and say the same thing at the same moment all the time. One very odd such a shared thought(odd because i can't explain it like i can the twin ones) happened to me maybe a year ago. I think i posted it in the skepticism forum in some telepathy or psychic topic. Basicly a friend asked me a question about who he saw that day, and before he finished the question i blurted out the answer without thinking, it just popped in my head. The answer was available to my mind as a ordinary memory from that moment(as if i had seen the event myself), and i could visualise at what location he saw what person (a politician waiting at a pedestrian stoplight in a city).

There's a fine line between the brain's ability to calculate an occurrence or what someone is about to say and the seemingly simultaneous occurrence of the same thought in two different, isolated locales (neuron bundles). Its probably extremely hard to distinguish between the two phenomena because the brain is as fast as, say, lightning or electricity in its processes.

Perhaps, but if these peoples brains represent their thoughts, and are partially in superposition witheachother, then it looks like it violates the information transfer obstacle, which supposedly cannot occur through quantum nonlocality.

Perhaps, but check this out.

The perception of reality by biosystems is based on different, and in certain respects more effective principles than those utilised by the more formal procedures of science. As a result, what appears as random pattern to the scientific method can be meaningful pattern to a living organism. The existence of this complementary perception of reality makes possible in principle effective use by organisms of the direct interconnections between spatially separated objects shown to exist in the work of J.S. Bell.1. INTRODUCTION

Bell(1,2)[4] has given arguments that appear to demonstrate the existence of direct interconnections between spatially separated objects. But at the same time there are arguments(4-6) that appear to show that no real physical manifestations of these interconnections actually exist. The thesis developed in this paper is that it is only from the point of view of quantum mechanics that these connections appear to be unphysical, and that there is a different, complementary point of view, one associated specifically with the activities of living organisms, in terms of which the interconnections may be very concretely real, and capable of being put to practical use.

from

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html

This paper discusses the interconnectivity in biological systems that seems to mimic the interconnectivity you are talking about in quantum non-locality.

You say the idea violates the information transfer obstacle found in quantum non-locality.

Lets analyse a few of our terms. I meant to do this with the term "thought". What is it?

Thought.
As far as I know "thought" is a specific configuration of em waves generated by single and multiple groups of neurons with specific combinations and volumes of sodium, potassium and various neurotransmitters interacting to produce a thought. A thought can be generated by external and/or internal stimuli. I have a feeling that thought is regulated by hormonal influence and all these factors are influenced by genetically regulated physical traits and behaviours.

Superposition.
Lets really break this word down into its two parts. Super (above) and position (location). This word suggests that observations are made from above the action (sic). Rather than being a part of the action we detach our point of view and go to a view where the action can be viewed as a whole. This would be like instead of watching a river rush past us from its banks we are able to see the head waters and the mouth of the river at the same time. This offers the vantage point where we can see the river in a non-linear and non-sequential light.

Information.
What does it consist of? It is semi-sequential in that one seems to have to understand the initial portion of information to understand the rest of it. But physically what is it? It seems to me that bits of information are configurations of em waves generated by denser, compacted em waves that constitute what we term as matter. Matter on the other hand is increasingly being proven to be energy. So energy seems to be the conduit for information yet specific information is packaged in specifically configured em waves.

Taking a simplistic view using my definition of thought I'd say it is entirely possible that specific thoughts or information could occur in non-locality since they are physically just specific configurations of em waves packaged individually and distiguished from one another by configuration. Do these em wave packettes have a non-local property? If so, what would make them act in a quantum mechanical manner? Is it something to do with the electrons that make up the information that is a thought?

Input please!?

 

[nannoh]

As far as I know we are all subjected and exposed to the same stimuli. The sun, the Earth and everything that goes with these two mammoth stimuli are forefront in our perception and our collective experience. These stimuli and the many other constants that come with them are stimulating neurons in our brains and nervous system. They fire and keep tabs on our environment. That is a function of our brain. It keeps us aware of our environment which is a function of survival. That's why our species and many others are still around today. This fact alone generates the probable condition where specific neuronal activity is taking place, simultaneously, in spacially separated locations (individual brains). But does that collective neuronal activity constitute something we can call superposition of thought?

 

[Andrew Abbass]

You might find this interesting.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu"