MacroEntanglement and Consciousness

[steve001]

This concerns the the use of QM to explain consciousness. I'm looking for any weaknesses in this paper.
With an interest in physics, but being a lay person I understand little of the more complex ideas. Therefore, I'm somewhat at a loss to notice incorrect usage of such ideas most of the time. If you have the time would you look it over and comment. Thank you
The title of the paper is:

Theoretical and Experimental Evidence of Macroscopic Entanglement
Between Human Brain Activity and Photon Emissions: Implications for Quantum Consciousness and Future Applications
Michael A. Persinger* & Christina F. Lavallee
http://www.jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/99/101

 

[xts]

Any weaknesses? There ar no any! I am excited!
I haven't seen such imposture intellectuelle for quite a long time.
They are even better than Lacan!

 

[DrChinese]

This concerns the the use of QM to explain consciousness. I'm looking for any weaknesses in this paper.
With an interest in physics, but being a lay person I understand little of the more complex ideas. Therefore, I'm somewhat at a loss to notice incorrect usage of such ideas most of the time. If you have the time would you look it over and comment. Thank you
The title of the paper is:

Theoretical and Experimental Evidence of Macroscopic Entanglement
Between Human Brain Activity and Photon Emissions: Implications for Quantum Consciousness and Future Applications
Michael A. Persinger* & Christina F. Lavallee
http://www.jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/99/101

Welcome to PhysicsForums, steve001!

There is a technical term we often use for papers like this. However, most spam filters do not allow it through.

You have to understand that throwing around a lot of equations and references to Physics papers and scientists does not change anything. The paper's purpose is to intimate that entanglement somehow relates to consciousness. I know a bit about entanglement, as do many others. But if you could give me a precise definition of consciousness, you would probably get a Nobel. That should help you to understand that this paper is not really science in the normal sense of the word.

 

[Mattenerinfo]

Any weaknesses? I'll be nice and sum them all up into one. This paper tries to prove a point by linking terms that truly have nothing to do with each other like Shroedingers entanglement, and uses famous scientists to try to back it's point because you can't argue with what those scientists said. However it is very easy to argue the flimsy, nonexistent, or all together wrong connections between them all that this paper is making. At best this paper is psuedo science, but truly it's not even that, because that would imply science in some form. All this is is a collection of references that try to prove a point that has no grounds of it's own, or at least no grounds presented in that paper.

 

[xts]

I really recommend a book:
Alan Sokal, Jean Brickmont, "Impostures Intellectuelles",
English version: "Fashionable Nonsense - Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science"

 

[Doc Al]

On that note, this thread is closed.