Hello ToKers,



I’d like to query the readers of this article on Quantum Mechanics, to see
how much support there is for what is being described.  Does anyone
question anything in the article?


https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201901_quantum-2Dmechanics-2Dand-2Dyou&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_ktg7BFTyCitSYM1AGDXn8oUp8HjXoRh6PHk1r5nnKU&s=G8vuZBubb_yC17s9wFXr-UtoElxB2U9Cd_QWAY1ifUI&e=




For example, it states: “a number of modern theories for consciousness
invoke quantum mechanisms”  But I only know of one, championed by Penrose
and Hameroff: “Orchestrated Object Reduction Theory”  (Orch OR) There is a
camp for this on Canonizer.com, submitted by Stuart Hameroff: (see:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DOrch-2DOR_20&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_ktg7BFTyCitSYM1AGDXn8oUp8HjXoRh6PHk1r5nnKU&s=FqAoDcFB2zs9kDNgd2EZW7oU65-EVlZNN3-mQXFZJ5A&e= ).  But as you can see, there
isn’t a lot of support for this, and a significant number of
neuroscientists and quantum mechanics researchers scoff at ideas like in
vivo microtubules, in a warm wet environment, having any quantum effect on
any neural functionality.  If there are more theories, it would be nice to
get them canonized, so we could no more about them, and see if any of them
have any more support than Orch OR theory.  I’m not an expert in quantum
mechanics, so could be way off in my opinion.  An important part of
amplifying the wisdom of the crowd is being able to measure, whether or not
there really are “a number of modern theories” and so on, and what everyone
thinks about this kind of stuff.  How many people think much of this is
“fake news”?



And for me, statements like this don’t even pass the laugh test:



The geneticist Mae-Wan Ho noted that the ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate)
transfer that permits coordinated muscle contraction, such as moving your
arm, requires the coordination of an astronomical number of cells. The
scale of distances spans nine orders of magnitude. It ranges from
approximately 10-9 at the level of inter-molecular spacing, to nearly one
meter for our arm length. Simple arm motion requires the coordinate
splitting of more than 1020 ATP molecules. Only non-local quantum
correlations can account for this instantaneous physiological
responsiveness.



It is well known that there are lots of creative engineering going on in
all this to compensate for the speed of neural conductivity.  Things like
reflex neural crossover and controlling mechanisms near the muscles,
Multiple Draft theories of consciousness, giving the brain time to
construct our awareness of reality, a bit after it really happens, yet
still managing to appear to us like it is “instantaneous” and so on.



In other words, it seems to me there is far more expert support for
Substance Dualism theories of consciousness, including multiple supporting
competing sub camps (see:

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DSubstance-2DDualism_48&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_ktg7BFTyCitSYM1AGDXn8oUp8HjXoRh6PHk1r5nnKU&s=yYIjwk_HG_dBFHy_HBqquSYHPidstSmYBcT9at5dKlw&e= ) than there is support
for quantum effects having significant causal effects on neural behavior.  I
understand that “substance dualism” wouldn’t belong in the Tree of
Knowledge, at least not on the core levels.  So I’m wondering how much this
kind of stuff belongs in the ToK?  And what methodology might be used to
determine what belongs, and what doesn't?  It might be possible to only
allow information that has a certain amount of "expert consensus", as
measured at canonizer.com, for whether such ideas should be included in the
core ToK, or not?



Brent

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 8:50 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi List,
>
>   I am happy to share a guest blog by Bill Miller and John Torday, titled
> “Quantum Mechanics and You.” Here is the link:
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201901_quantum-2Dmechanics-2Dand-2Dyou&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_ktg7BFTyCitSYM1AGDXn8oUp8HjXoRh6PHk1r5nnKU&s=G8vuZBubb_yC17s9wFXr-UtoElxB2U9Cd_QWAY1ifUI&e=
>
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Department of Graduate Psychology
> 216 Johnston Hall
> MSC 7401
> James Madison University
> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>
>
> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>
> Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=_ktg7BFTyCitSYM1AGDXn8oUp8HjXoRh6PHk1r5nnKU&s=YE8GD0giVCTcTEqI7DMJXqB8hxKDoI6stzCEKGmuwxg&e=
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1