Quantum effects at the neurological level

[rasp]

I had read that Roger Penrose and others (like Hameroff and Chalmers from Arizona) have been studying the possibility that quantum events may influence the way our nerves fire and our brains develop thought. Can anyone comment on the scientific progress of these studies?

 

[alxm]

Sure: It's unwarranted speculation at best and pseudoscience at worst.

It's not taken seriously by anyone in the field. And by 'the field' I mean people who actually know both quantum physics and chemistry: Theoretical chemists, quantum chemists, chemical physicists - in particular the ones studying biochemical systems.

Penrose is a mathematician. Hameroff is an anesthesiologist. Neither are quantum chemists - despite that that's been an established field for about 80 years. If it doesn't strike you as odd that these ideas are being promoted by people completely outside the field, it should.

 

[rasp]

Sure: It's unwarranted speculation at best and pseudoscience at worst.

It's not taken seriously by anyone in the field. If it doesn't strike you as odd that these ideas are being promoted by people completely outside the field, it should.

Your point about the field is well taken. Yet, although it is odd, I still find it encouraging that some Nobel Prize winners like Penrose, Shrodinger, Crick, Polkinghorne, and others choose to exercise their minds beyond their disciplines to investigate what could be called "the moose on the table" i.e. the "mystery" of consciousness.

Perhaps, I should have asked what are the latest scientific theories regarding consciousness?

 

[Nick666]

Mistery of consciousness? What are you talking about ?

Ya mean why the wavelenght of red looks like red ? You should ask a color-blind person .

 

[Galteeth]

Mistery of consciousness? What are you talking about ?

Ya mean why the wavelenght of red looks like red ? You should ask a color-blind person .

I believe he is referring to the "hard problem."

 

[alxm]

Your point about the field is well taken. Yet, although it is odd, I still find it encouraging that some Nobel Prize winners like Penrose, Shrodinger, Crick, Polkinghorne, and others choose to exercise their minds beyond their disciplines to investigate what could be called "the moose on the table" i.e. the "mystery" of consciousness.

Actually, only Crick and Schrödinger are Nobel laureates out of those. I don't know that either made any kind of direct connection between QM and neurology, though.
Attributing mystery to consciousness is, IMO:
1) Anthropocentric.. it strokes our egos to think that maybe our brains are really spectacular and not simple chemical machines. That kind of thinking has very consistently been wrong. We're not in the center of the solar system. We're not in the center of the universe. We're not really different from other animals. "Animal magnetism" and "life force" etc don't exist. Organic substances turned out not to be fundamentally different from other chemicals, and so far, biochemistry has not turned out to be fundamentally different from other chemistry. Many things in biology are unexplained, but I don't know of anything that's considered unexplainable in the current framework of things. (quasi-)Macroscopic quantum behavior is not part of that framework.

2) Unwarranted, it's obviously a higher brain function and we've barely begun to understand the basics of how the brain works. There's no real reason to assume it'd be more difficult to understand than any other brain function, and even less reason to assume it'd be unexplainable by biochemistry, or chemistry, or anything short of a direct application of QM. I don't think anyone would ever have proposed such a far-fetched thing if it hadn't been for the reasons stated in (1).

Perhaps, I should have asked what are the latest scientific theories regarding consciousness?

It's an excellent question. But it's absolutely a question for neurologists, cognitive neuroscientists, and the whole plethora of folks that study the brain. It's not a question for physicists. That would only happen if the neurologists eventually ran into something that in no way could be explained by existing biochemistry, which in turn could not be explained by existing theoretical chemistry. Which is a pretty tall order, given that nothing of the sort has turned up.

(And again, there's no particular reason to think it'd turn up in connection with human consciousness)

 

[Fightfish]

Perhaps, I should have asked what are the latest scientific theories regarding consciousness?

Well, in the July issue of Physics World, Paul Davies wrote an article "The quantum life", which gives a rather comprehensive overview of "quantum biology", even including a discussion on the issue of decoherence. You can view it here: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/39669

 

[rasp]

Actually, only Crick and Schrödinger are Nobel laureates out of those. I don't know that either made any kind of direct connection between QM and neurology, though.
Attributing mystery to consciousness is, IMO:
1) Anthropocentric.. it strokes our egos to think that maybe our brains are really spectacular and not simple chemical machines. That kind of thinking has very consistently been wrong. We're not in the center of the solar system. We're not in the center of the universe. We're not really different from other animals. "Animal magnetism" and "life force" etc don't exist. Organic substances turned out not to be fundamentally different from other chemicals, and so far, biochemistry has not turned out to be fundamentally different from other chemistry. Many things in biology are unexplained, but I don't know of anything that's considered unexplainable in the current framework of things. (quasi-)Macroscopic quantum behavior is not part of that framework.

2) Unwarranted, it's obviously a higher brain function and we've barely begun to understand the basics of how the brain works. There's no real reason to assume it'd be more difficult to understand than any other brain function, and even less reason to assume it'd be unexplainable by biochemistry, or chemistry, or anything short of a direct application of QM. I don't think anyone would ever have proposed such a far-fetched thing if it hadn't been for the reasons stated in (1).

Let me disagree with your philosophical points by quoting selectively from lectures given by Schrödinger in 1956 entitled What is Life, and Mind and Matter.

Anthropocentric.. it strokes our egos to think that maybe our brains are really spectacular and not simple chemical machines.

From Schrödinger "He who accepts this brushing aside of the question ought to be told what an uncanny gap he thereby allows to remain in his picture of the world." Schrödinger argues that the brain "is the most elaborate and most ingenious of all mechanisms for adaptation to a changing environment."

Organic substances turned out not to be fundamentally different from other chemicals, and so far, biochemistry has not turned out to be fundamentally different from other chemistry.

Schrödinger speaking of biology from the standpoint of entropy, "From all that we have learned about the structure of living matter, we must be prepared to find it working in a manner that cannot be reduced to the ordinary laws of physics" (italics mine) "In biology we are faced with an entirely different situation...events whose regular and lawful unfolding is guided by a mechanism entirely different from the 'probability mechanism' of physics...it is unknown anywhere else except in living matter."

or anything short of a direct application of QM.

Schrödinger didn't believed QM played a significant role in the biology of the mind for he says, " the space-time events in the body of a living being, which correspond to the activity of its mind, to its self-conscious or any other actions, are...if not strictly deterministic at any rate statistico-deterministic". He makes an interesting logical point of why consciousness cannot be confined within the physical bounds of the brain. He hypothesizes the state of the world if consciousness were linked to the brain, and the brain never evolved "Would it (the world) otherwise have remained a play before empty benches, not existing for anybody, thus quite properly speaking not existing?" (italics mine)


He states the problem as the need to draw a correct, non-contradictory conclusion from the following two premises:
"1) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature
2) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I forsee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them."

I believe he takes the stance that consciousness must exist outside the body because of his very strong personal belief that an observation is required to separate existence from possibility via the collapse of the wavefunction.
Your comments?

 

[rasp]

Mistery of consciousness? What are you talking about ?

Ya mean why the wavelenght of red looks like red ? You should ask a color-blind person .

This is an old question. I was just wondering if there are some new answers.
Schrodinger wrote in Mind and Matter in 1956 "the sensation of color cannot be accounted for by the physicists objective picture of light waves." Yellow is produced by a certain numerical wavelength. Yet an indistinguishable sensation of yellow can be produced by mixing green and red of different wavelengths. "Is there a numerical connection between these physical objective characteristics of these waves? No".

 

[f95toli]

Yes, Schrödinger did not know enough of neither neurology nor quantum physics to be considered an authority in this matter.

Remember that he died in 1961 and did most of his important work in the very early days of QM when it was still being developed. Most of the physics and biology that is relevant here simply did not exist when he was active.

Peter Knight likes to illustrate how much our view and understanding of QM has changed over the past few decades by using the following quote from Schrödinger:

we never experiment with just one electron or atom or (small) molecule. In thought-experiments we sometimes assume that we do; this invariably entails ridiculous consequences….*

Which is of course now incorrect; and we also know that those "ridiculous" consequences are real.

 

[rasp]

Well, in the July issue of Physics World, Paul Davies wrote an article "The quantum life", which gives a rather comprehensive overview of "quantum biology", even including a discussion on the issue of decoherence. You can view it here: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/39669

Thanks for the reference, which was enlightening regarding biology in general, although it didn't say much regarding neuroscience. I admire Davies' strong stance on the incredibility of random events explaining the origin of life.

 

[rasp]

Yes, Schrödinger did not know enough of neither neurology nor quantum physics to be considered an authority in this matter.

You say yes, meaning there are new developments in relating the subjective quality of conscious experience to the physical phenomenon? Can you reference them?

 

[f95toli]

I'd say you are starting from the wrong end here. We are not even sure there IS such as thing as a "consciousness" in the traditional sense (as far as I can tell modern research seems to indicate that there isn't). Much less any reason to expect it to be related to "physics" beyond the normal (or at least well known) physics you need to understand chemistry.
I don't know much about neurology (although I have an "indirect" interest since some of the potential applications of some of work is in that field); but I'd say it might be worth starting with one of Dennet's books. You should also look up some references on fMRI and other modern experimental methods.

 

[rasp]

I'd say you are starting from the wrong end here. We are not even sure there IS such as thing as a "consciousness" in the traditional sense (as far as I can tell modern research seems to indicate that there isn't).

There is NO traditional sense of consciousness. Only an ostrich with its head in the sand would say there is no consciousness. Perhaps you'd be happier with the term awareness.

Much less any reason to expect it to be related to "physics" beyond the normal (or at least well known) physics you need to understand chemistry.

There are NO working theories of consciousness on a physics or chemical basis as far as I know. And there are unique qualities of consciousness that make it different than most neurological events, and which lead researchers to postulate exotic theories like emergence from organizational complexity or QM.

 

[f95toli]

There is NO traditional sense of consciousness. Only an ostrich with its head in the sand would say there is no consciousness. Perhaps you'd be happier with the term awareness.

I mean "traditional" as in how the term was used be e.g. Decartes.

There are NO working theories of consciousness on a physics or chemical basis as far as I know. And there are unique qualities of consciousness that make it different than most neurological events, and which lead researchers to postulate exotic theories like emergence from organizational complexity or QM.

There are definitely at least fragments of theories for what we perceive as consciousness; but you are right that there are no fully developed theory yet.

btw, which "unique qualities" are you referring to that can NOT be explanined without using "exotic" physics?

Note that neither QM nor complex system (or emergence) are very "exotic", the former has been around for over a 100 years now and although there are many unanswered questions we do know quite a lot about how QM applies to essentially classical systems such as the brain.
Emergence and more generally the study of complex systems has also been around for quite a while and there are plenty of applications; e.g. much of modern condensed matter theory uses concepts from these fields (it is hardly a coincidence that e.g. Laughlin is a big proponent of emergence). It is likely that any theory for how the brain works will use elements of these fields, but that does not make such a theory "exotic".

 

[rasp]

I mean "traditional" as in how the term was used be e.g. Decartes.

Some "traditional" questions of consciousness go back before Descartes and are still viable. Descartes divided the world into thinking substances "res cognita" and extended substances "res extensa". In the 5th century BC Democritus wrote a play in which the intellect, "res cognita", argues with the senses, "res extensa", about what is real. The former says, " Ostensibly there is color, ostensibly sweetness, ostensibly bitterness, actually only atoms and the void. . To which the senses retorted,'Poor intellect, do you hope to defeat us while from us you borrow your evidence?'

One unique characteristic of consciousness is just this. That all knowledge of the external world, observations, quantum and other wise must eventually pass though our senses.

Emergence and more generally the study of complex systems has also been around for quite a while and there are plenty of applications; ... that does not make such a theory "exotic".

I call emergence "exotic" because in the normal sense "the sum" is not greater than the integration of its parts, and the integral can always be differentiated into its constituent parts. When some delta exists between sum and integral that delta is exotic.

 

[Galteeth]

I could go on and on about Dennet and these arguments, but perhaps it would be better to move this thread?

 

[Nick666]

rasp, you should watch all these 5 episodes. http://www.tvokay.com/documentary/bbc-s-brain-story.htm (click cancel if that weird window appears)

BBC's Brain Story. If you're interested in scientific progress on the brain, you should watch this.

 

[atyy]

For what is worth, even though it's from a superb scientist who also has fun being an occasional crackpot, here is a rebuttal of QM having anything to do with consciousness: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009

My own view is that the difficulty with "consciousness" is defining it operationally - like "long range entanglement" - a concept which theorists don't understand well enough yet to tell experimentalists what they should measure to determine whether the property is absent or present in the sample: http://pirsa.org/08110003/ (try 58:30).

 

[nikman]

Don't lump Chalmers with Hameroff-Penrose (he's not a scientist, and not at Arizona any longer anyway ... he's gone home to Oz).Interesting paper on avian magnetoreception involving the quantum Zeno effect:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2646The UIUC Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group:

http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/quantum_biology/

 

[rasp]

Thanks to all who have replied. I got what I wanted from this thread, which is an update to my knowledge. I haven't read all the references yet but I will. So for now adios.

Can't resist one last question. Anyone have an opinion on Henry Stapp's work on quantum computing?

 

[nikman]

Stapp seems like Penrose-Hameroff gone holistic. And since you're still around and receptive to speculative input, here's Johnjoe McFadden, a reputable molecular biologist who believes the brain and consciousness need to be understood in terms of electromagnetic fields:

http://machineslikeus.com/MLU-interviews-johnjoe-mcfadden.html

 

[alxm]

Schrödinger speaking of biology from the standpoint of entropy, "From all that we have learned about the structure of living matter, we must be prepared to find it working in a manner that cannot be reduced to the ordinary laws of physics" (italics mine) "In biology we are faced with an entirely different situation...events whose regular and lawful unfolding is guided by a mechanism entirely different from the 'probability mechanism' of physics...it is unknown anywhere else except in living matter."

Sure, we can be 'prepared' to find it working in a matter that defies 'ordinary' laws of physics. But we have no reason to expect it to do so. None at all, especially given that - as I said- every time an "outside of ordinary physics" mechanism has been proposed in biology, it's turned out to be false. (Oh and I forgot another one: Newton, in Opticks, thought "That which causes fermentation" was a fundamental force of nature, like gravity.) Every day, more and more aspects of biology are being explained in terms of the physics and chemistry we all know.

 

[alxm]

Interesting paper on avian magnetoreception involving the quantum Zeno effect:

I don't think anyone said I never said that processes in biology don't sometimes require quantum-mechanical treatment. If you think I did, perhaps I took it for granted that as obvious. Just to take an example: Eyesight, the absorption of (down to) individual photons, is not something chemistry has traditionally dealt with. Neither is the nature of most electron transfer.

The point I was making was that, none of this is unique or specific to biochemistry.

The UIUC Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group:

Yup, they work with similar stuff to what I do. I've used their software, VMD, as well.
I could say that I work in "quantum biology", only I despise that term exactly because of this - getting conflated with all this unserious Deepak Chopra stuff. (A misguided acquaintance gave me a book of his, "I heard you did quantum physics, so I thought you'd find this interesting..")

here's Johnjoe McFadden, a reputable molecular biologist who believes the brain and consciousness need to be understood in terms of electromagnetic fields:

Yet another person way out of their field. You don't need to know anything about quantum mechanics to get a degree in molecular biology, you know. Wonder why the actual quantum chemists studying biological systems you linked to aren't advocating any such things... hmm?

(Just to be nice I'll give an example of the reverse: Henry Schaefer is very reputable quantum chemist. He's also an outspoken creationist, meaning he believes complete nonsense about biology)

Ridiculous, he's got no calculations there. The physics is all hand-waving. There's no model of the brain. It's idle speculation.

Seriously, if anyone thinks they know how the brain works, they should go explain the causes of schizophrenia, and all the many, many, many other neurological disorders. Help the sick.

There will never be a problem with explaining consciousness until every other aspect of the brain is understood. Because until then: How do you know it's not due to one of the things you don't understand yet?

That's how science works. You don't put the cart in front of the horse, and you don't try to solve problems until you know what the problem is.

 

[nikman]

I don't think anyone said I never said that processes in biology don't sometimes require quantum-mechanical treatment. If you think I did, perhaps I took it for granted that as obvious. Just to take an example: Eyesight, the absorption of (down to) individual photons, is not something chemistry has traditionally dealt with. Neither is the nature of most electron transfer.

The point I was making was that, none of this is unique or specific to biochemistry.

Yup, they work with similar stuff to what I do. I've used their software, VMD, as well.
I could say that I work in "quantum biology", only I despise that term exactly because of this - getting conflated with all this unserious Deepak Chopra stuff. (A misguided acquaintance gave me a book of his, "I heard you did quantum physics, so I thought you'd find this interesting..")


Yet another person way out of their field. You don't need to know anything about quantum mechanics to get a degree in molecular biology, you know. Wonder why the actual quantum chemists studying biological systems you linked to aren't advocating any such things... hmm?

(Just to be nice I'll give an example of the reverse: Henry Schaefer is very reputable quantum chemist. He's also an outspoken creationist, meaning he believes complete nonsense about biology)

Ridiculous, he's got no calculations there. The physics is all hand-waving. There's no model of the brain. It's idle speculation.

Seriously, if anyone thinks they know how the brain works, they should go explain the causes of schizophrenia, and all the many, many, many other neurological disorders. Help the sick.

There will never be a problem with explaining consciousness until every other aspect of the brain is understood. Because until then: How do you know it's not due to one of the things you don't understand yet?

That's how science works. You don't put the cart in front of the horse, and you don't try to solve problems until you know what the problem is.

To the extent that this responds to my post: I wasn't aware I was talking to you. Why would I want to do that?

 

[alxm]

To the extent that this responds to my post: I wasn't aware I was talking to you. Why would I want to do that?

If you were talking to someone in particular, it certainly wasn't obvious. So what's your problem?

 

[nikman]

If you were talking to someone in particular, it certainly wasn't obvious. So what's your problem?

I was clearly responding to the thread-starter, rasp, whose post mine followed and whom I called "you", even if I didn't bother to quote him. And I did stipulate that McFadden is speculative. As he certainly is. But not ignorant or necessarily wrong.

You tone impresses me as unnecessarily aggressive, if not hostile. Like who appointed you to be cop on the beat? If I'm wrong I apologize. (It's just that, like you, I'm seldom if ever wrong.)

 

[Galteeth]

There will never be a problem with explaining consciousness until every other aspect of the brain is understood. Because until then: How do you know it's not due to one of the things you don't understand yet?

That's how science works. You don't put the cart in front of the horse, and you don't try to solve problems until you know what the problem is.

Well, not necessarily. The basic concept behind evolution was worked out before the particulars of DNA.

 

[alxm]

You tone impresses me as unnecessarily aggressive, if not hostile. Like who appointed you to be cop on the beat? If I'm wrong I apologize. (It's just that, like you, I'm seldom if ever wrong.)

Yes, I am hostile to "quantum-consciousness" theories, for reasons I stated. They're overly speculative at best, pure pseudoscience at worst, and I'm fed up with having that nonsense conflated with the quite legitimate research that's being done in biophysics and quantum (bio)chemistry. In much the same way that an astronomer is going to be hostile to a question about horoscopes.

If you can't handle criticism of ideas without taking it as a personal slight: grow up.

 

[alxm]

Well, not necessarily. The basic concept behind evolution was worked out before the particulars of DNA.

That's simply not the same thing. Darwin knew exactly what he was trying to explain: the origin of the species. How speciesization occurs. The ultimate physical details of his solution weren't known. (and several erroneous theories would come about before it all got sorted)

What I was criticizing is the very opposite: They're proposing detailed physical theories to a biological question that is not well-defined.

 

[Galteeth]

That's simply not the same thing. Darwin knew exactly what he was trying to explain: the origin of the species. How speciesization occurs. The ultimate physical details of his solution weren't known. (and several erroneous theories would come about before it all got sorted)

What I was criticizing is the very opposite: They're proposing detailed physical theories to a biological question that is not well-defined.

Ok, I'll give it a shot. Consciousness is an emergent property of brains. Unlike say, water, we have no real understanding of the relationship between the physical arrangement of the matter and this particular emergent property.
In many ways we lack the intellectual tools to investigate it, as consciousness can only be directly observed by the one experiencing it. Nevertheless, it is clearly a natural property that somehow emerges from the matter in our brains. We generally assume that brains produce a bounded consciousness (i.e., I can access my own memories and prior experiences in my stream of conscousness, but not yours) and that things that are not brains (like rocks) do not have consciousness.

So the question is, what physical properties result in this emergence?

 

[alxm]

In many ways we lack the intellectual tools to investigate it, as consciousness can only be directly observed by the one experiencing it.

Which isn't true. There are many physical ways of telling the difference between say, a conscious and unconscious brain. With recent advances in fMRI and similar, they're getting better and better at it; to the extent that they can tell quite a lot about what you're thinking about. Whether it's pleasant or unpleasant, whether you're fantasizing or remembering an actual event, etc. There's no reason to believe that consciousness cannot be observed.

Nevertheless, it is clearly a natural property that somehow emerges from the matter in our brains.

Which is a statement so vague as to be useless. That's just not a scientific theory of any sort. Begin with: How do you measure that 'natural property'? How do you know it's 'emergent'? What do you mean by 'emergent'? That it's not something done by an individual neural cell? What bodily function is performed by cells working individually? Wouldn't most everything a complex being does be an 'emergent property' then?

We generally assume that brains produce a bounded consciousness (i.e., I can access my own memories and prior experiences in my stream of conscousness, but not yours) and that things that are not brains (like rocks) do not have consciousness.

Which is a convoluted way of saying 'thinking goes on inside your head'. Well, we've known that for quite some time.

So what's the problem here? That you feel there's a difference between your subjectively experienced consciousness and what an MRI machine might register? So what? That's a metaphysical question, not a science question.

 

[kote]

Which is a convoluted way of saying 'thinking goes on inside your head'. Well, we've known that for quite some time.

So what's the problem here? That you feel there's a difference between your subjectively experienced consciousness and what an MRI machine might register? So what? That's a metaphysical question, not a science question.

That's exactly the issue. Science apparently can't solve the hard problem. Science is one tool useful for gaining knowledge. I would certainly argue that there are meaningful questions that science can't answer. The most obvious example might just be "why should anyone do science?" It's not a scientific question, but unless you've implicitly answered it you won't be doing any experiments.

Are you saying that a blind person could have the same type of knowledge of the color red that I have? That a deaf person could observe music in the way that I do?

Also, what's with the Chalmers bashing? I'm not with him on this issue, but the guy has employment offers at all of the top philosophy departments in the world including NYU, Oxford, Princeton, and Rutgers. Arizona is also a top 15 school.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Answering the OP, Brain MRI Scan (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) comes to my mind.

"Magnetic resonance imaging, the scientific term behind a brain MRI, is a relatively new technique which uses the quantum mechanical characteristics of protons in your body tissues to create an image. The specific details of the science behind an MRI is quite complex. In general, the patient is placed in a large magnet which aligns all their protons into the same spin. A radiofrequency pulse stimulates these protons, most abundant in water, and an electrical coil around the head detects the signals that result. In the end, the computer uses complex mathematics to convert these signals into an image which the physicians read and interpret."
http://www.nervous-system-diseases.com/brain-mri.html

The whole article is educational. :) Worth the read. Of course, I love to read about everything. LOL! I'm a speed reader. Amoung the first kids they experimented speed reading on in elementary school decades ago.

 

[Galteeth]

Which isn't true. There are many physical ways of telling the difference between say, a conscious and unconscious brain. With recent advances in fMRI and similar, they're getting better and better at it; to the extent that they can tell quite a lot about what you're thinking about. Whether it's pleasant or unpleasant, whether you're fantasizing or remembering an actual event, etc. There's no reason to believe that consciousness cannot be observed.



Which is a statement so vague as to be useless. That's just not a scientific theory of any sort. Begin with: How do you measure that 'natural property'? How do you know it's 'emergent'? What do you mean by 'emergent'? That it's not something done by an individual neural cell? What bodily function is performed by cells working individually? Wouldn't most everything a complex being does be an 'emergent property' then?



Which is a convoluted way of saying 'thinking goes on inside your head'. Well, we've known that for quite some time.

So what's the problem here? That you feel there's a difference between your subjectively experienced consciousness and what an MRI machine might register? So what? That's a metaphysical question, not a science question.

Ok, I'll start with the assertion about the usefulness of saying consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. In the historical past, there was a debate as to whether mind was of some fundamentally different substance then matter. One side has won this debate, dualism clearly lost. We can then say, consciousness must be a property that results from the brain, not something existing in some other platonic realm.


Wouldn't most everything a complex being does be an 'emergent property' then?
Yes, but we have a coherent picture of that emergence for other functions. Understanding the circulatory system, we can go to the organ level, the tissue level, the cellular level, the molecular level, to some extent even to the quantum level, and there's no trouble with a gap of how each stage of complexity leads to the next. The brain could presumably be described in such a fashion except for consciousness.

This leads directly into the philosophical zombie problem. Science has no fundamental issue with describing the brain assuming people are just p-zombies. However, consciousness does not "intuitively" seem to be neccessary, but nevertheless it exists. What function does it serve? What physical properties will lead to consciousness as oppossed to non-consciousness? Is it a matter of information processing? If so, can non-organic systems produce consciousness? What is the threshold? What kind of information creates consciousness? HOW does it do this? It is something else, a biological feature? Does it have an evolutionary advantage, or is it some sort of spandle?

You can go the way of Dennet and deal with the problems by essentially asserting that consciousness, in the immediate, qualia sense, does not exist.
Well, great, but... it's not true.

You can not directly observe consciousness. You can observe neurological events that are correlated with changes in consciousness.
I agree that we can tell to some extent the difference between a brain that's conscious and one that's not by observing its physical properties. And this is my exact point. That matter, those processes, are somehow creating consciousness. But there is still a fundamental gap in how we get from the level of the brain as an organ to consciousness as it exists.

You can pretend this problem doesn't exist, but it does, and ultimately it is a scientific question, not just philosophical musing.