Collapse of wave function and consciousness

[edmund cavendish]

TL;DR

Penrose and Hameroff: quantum process in microtubules. In the variety of attempts to solve Chalmers' Hard Problem how viable is the quantum option? Could superpositions be a form of consciousness: in so far as the resolution of possibilities into something definite is a form of consciousness?

Does quantum theory provide a viable explanation of the nature of consciousness? Could every thought/ action be a resolution of superpositions?

 

[.Scott]

"The nature of consciousness"? That's ambiguous - but, No, not the nature of consciousness as most would interpret it.
But quantum super-positioning is the only mechanism in Physics for holding a non-trivial amount of information in a single state - and most people would claim that their experience of "consciousness" includes that ability.

So, as far as Chalmer's Hard Problem" is concerned, it divides the question - isolating the "hard" part to unexplained (and likely unexplainable) Physics while leaving the rest as a kind of biology engineering problem.

From the OP: "Could every thought/ action be a resolution of superpositions?"
This gets into the "engineering" part. Penrose and Hameroff described the consciousness process as occurring across neurons via the microtubules that you mentioned. They also seemed to buy into the notion that people are of one mind. I suggest that we consist of many such quantum "circuits", each attempting to find a high-scoring "plan", but only one such plan-inventor gets to write to our story at a time and the "plan" is further censored by classical circuitry before being implemented. I'm also not on board with those microtubules.

At this point, the main purpose of trying to work out how consciousness works and what mechanisms could support it is to give those working with live brains (mostly animals brains, I hope) a notion of what to look for and where to look for it.

 

[PeterDonis]

Moderator's note: Thread moved to the QM interpretations subforum.

 

[PeterDonis]

Penrose and Hameroff: quantum process in microtubules.

This is really a separate question from the one you're asking in this thread. If you want to discuss the Penrose-Hameroff proposal, which is documented in the peer-reviewed literature, please start a separate thread referencing the appropriate papers as a basis for discussion.

Does quantum theory provide a viable explanation of the nature of consciousness? Could every thought/ action be a resolution of superpositions?

There is an interpretation of QM that basically says that consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function. I don't think it's a very popular interpretation, but it is one that has appeared in the literature.

 

[.Scott]

There is an interpretation of QM that basically says that consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function. I don't think it's a very popular interpretation, but it is one that has appeared in the literature.

I doubt this is what the OP was asking about.

The OP's summary mentions "Chalmers' Hard Problem". Chalmer himself sets this "hard problem" apart from the remainder of the consciousness discussion - comparing it to "electric charge" and other basic elements of Physics that require no further explanation.

When I discuss consciousness, I use the terms "consciousness" and "human consciousness" - hoping to make a clear distinction between the "basic element of Physics" and the engineering aspects of our neural machinery.

 

[PeterDonis]

the "basic element of Physics"

But we don't know that consciousness is a "basic element of Physics". Chalmers might think it is (although at different times he says different things that appear contradictory, so it's not at all clear what he actually believes), but that doesn't make it true. Chalmers certainly hasn't offered any actual physical model of how such a thing would work.

Penrose and Hameroff at least offered some kind of model, but as I said in my previous post, if the OP wants to discuss that, it needs to be done in a new thread that references a specific paper by them and asks questions about it.

 

[PeterDonis]

I doubt this is what the OP was asking about.

The OP refers to:

Could superpositions be a form of consciousness: in so far as the resolution of possibilities into something definite is a form of consciousness?

Could every thought/ action be a resolution of superpositions?

Those are ways of describing the "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation of QM. The OP might not have realized that, which is why I pointed it out.

If the OP wants to discuss some other proposal, we need a reference.

 

[.Scott]

The notion that consciousness can cause a QM collapse and was described by Eugene Wigner in 1961 and was used by David Chalmers in his 1996 book "The Conscious Mind". I would describe that notion as an attempt to identify exactly what constitutes the "measurement" that presumably results in forcing a QM state to "collapse". I'm using quotes because I don't really buy into the language - but it was certainly the lingo of the time.
Almost no one in Physics subscribes to this notion any more, not even Wigner.

But that same book also made use of Hugh Everett's no-collapse theory.

About "Chalmer's Hard Problem":
The OP asks about solving the "hard problem". Just to be clear, the "hard problem" is in contrast to the "easy problem" which would be to create the a-conscious AI equivalent of a person. The hard problem asks "what is the Physics of being aware?". It was termed the "hard problem of consciousness" by David Chalmer in 1991 - and he currently dominates the discussion about it. But it is an issue that's been "haunting" folks for at least centuries. For example, here's Gottfried Leibniz in the Monadology (1714):

It must be confessed, moreover, that perception, and that which depends on it, are inexplicable by mechanical causes, that is, by figures and motions, And, supposing that there were a mechanism so constructed as to think, feel and have perception, we might enter it as into a mill. And this granted, we should only find on visiting it, pieces which push one against another, but never anything by which to explain a perception. This must be sought, therefore, in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine.

So, here we are 3 centuries later and not only are we probing around inside the mill, but we know that some of those "pieces" may do more than just push against the next. Those "mechanical causes" are now known to include "QM".

The OP actually starts off with "Penrose and Hameroff: quantum process in microtubules."

Roger Penrose is the Nobel prize-winning Physicist that attacked this "hard problem" of consciousness. And when someone such as Gottlieb or Roger "attack" the problem, the first step is not to "solve" it, but just to show that it is something that needs to be addressed. But where Gottlieb gave us milling machinery, Roger provides chapter on chapter referencing computers, math, paper notes, computability, and more. He ties human consciousness to quantum mechanics in his book "The Emperor's New Mind" by arguing that a fundamentally different kind of computing mechanism is required to support consciousness.

Stuart Hameroff was an anesthesiologist. When paired with Penrose, they identified a basic element of human cell structure, the microtubules, as possible mechanisms where information might be held in a QM superposition - despite the wet and warm conditions found in our brains. and they ran with it.

What nailed it for me (a SW Engineer) was the information capacity argument - consciousness is experienced by most people as involving a lot of information even at the most basic level. Keeping every bit separated from every other bit (as is done in computers) precludes this. QM describes single physical states that require substantial information to describe them and which could be useful (in the Darwinian sense) for human thinking.


So, let me take a second swing at the OP's questions:
Q: Does quantum theory provide a viable explanation of the nature of consciousness?
A: Since we really are conscious and since regular Newtonian physics won't do it for us, QM is needs to be in the path. And I can make that true through these semantics: If current QM theory is somehow found to fail to support consciousness, we will have to revise QM.

Q: Could every thought/ action be a resolution of superpositions?
A: About this "every thought": we aren't trying to explain "every thought". For example, you're driving to a specialty store and the trip just happens to start off with the same route you take to work. Ten minutes later you find yourself in the parking lot at work. Do you really care about what thoughts you had when you made the wrong turn without even making a decision? There are things where consciousness is a clear participant and there are other cases where perhaps it is not.

 

[Nugatory]

Has anyone ever considered consciousness as being a fundamental law of the universe?

Yes, seriously in some philosophies of ethics and less seriously in new-age pseudo-philosophy.
However this thinking has proven unhelpful in empirical science - there's no getting around the "but what difference does it make?" question.