Materialism and Consciousness.

[El_Machinae]

Now, tell me, do you beleive that it is inadequate, and that simple interactions of neurons can't explain consciousness, or what?

I believe that simple neurons cannot understand the consciousness of simple neurons, if that answers this question (though it wasn't directed at me)

 

[Ayatollah So]

Bohmian mechanics tries to view a photon as a particle and give values of a particle in the sense of say a billiard ball, Schrodingers wave equation gives a set of values or wave functions that view a photon as a wave

Here's a good article on David Bohm's theory:
Albert, David Z. "Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics", Scientific American, May, 1994.
(I don't know if you can find it online, though.)

Bohm's theory makes identical predictions as standard QM for a very wide range of phenomena, including two-slit experiments. In the above referenced article, Albert describes a possible experiment that could allegedly favor standard QM over Bohm's theory or vice versa, but that went over my head at the time, and I can't recall it now.

Anyway, Bohm's theory eliminates some of the weird features of the Copenhagen Interpretation, in favor of other weirdnesses. In my totally subjective opinion though, the total weirdness of Bohm's theory is easier to handle.

 

[Ayatollah So]

But it does. The ideas about a soul say that consciousness is the presence of a soul, and the idea of a nonconscious spirit is as meaningless as a rock without matter. (So then the question of, "Why is a spirit conscious?" is as stupid as asking, "Why is a rock made up of matter?")

OK, with the right definition of "soul" you might be able to make the question "why are souls conscious" go away. But making it go away by defining it away is not the same as answering it. Consider a "shmoul", which is also nonphysical and "unextended" (occupying no space) just as souls are for Descartes. But a "shmoul" is by definition not-conscious. (I just made this word up, so I get to define it however I want.) Why do we have souls and not shmouls?

Next, consider "protomental quarks" and "protomental leptons". These, by definition, are physical particles obeying the same laws that quarks and leptons in the real world obey. Also by definition, they are the kind of things that when arranged in certain specific ways, collectively embody certain thoughts and feelings. We leave undefined the issue of whether real quarks and leptons are the protomental kind or some other kind. Still, on the hypothesis that real quarks and leptons are the protomental kind, it automatically follows that physical beings like us would be conscious.

(By the way, I'm curious, since you seem to beleive materialism fails to explain consciousness, what do you beleive explains it?)

There are at least two things one could mean by "X explains Y". First, X could be logically or causally sufficient for Y. "Paul posted here" is logically sufficient for "Ayatollah So posted here" because "Paul" and "Ayatollah So" refer to the same person. Second, the statement "X" could enlighten someone about the subject "Y", making them understand Y better, or see that Y must be true, or something along those lines. In principle, what counts as an "explanation" in this sense could vary from person to person, although there might also be some features that we all share in common when it comes to understanding explanations. If you start talking about "Paul" on CFC, most people won't understand who you're talking about, and you won't explain (in the second sense) anything to them.

I think materialism does explain consciousness in the first sense of "explain". In the second sense, it doesn't, and nothing else does either.

(I still think your example was a confusing and round-about way to put this, though. ) However, this doesn't quite KO the materialist explanation of consciousness: it's just saying that it's impossible to understand fully, but not that it's inadequate.

You're probably right about my confusing example. And you're also right about no KO, and that's my point. Consciousness, in particular "why does it even exist?" i.e. the hard problem, is impossible to understand fully, but that doesn't make the materialist explanations inadequate.

No theory can fully explain why consciousness exists instead of no consciousness existing. So, this fact should not be held against materialism.

My wife is gonna kick me off the computer soon, and this is a natural dividing point between two different subjects. So, more later.

 

[punkbass2000]

I like where Ayatollah So is headed

As he's agreed with me before, we create the mystery by asking the question. Reality, consciousness, what have you, needs no explanation and cannot have one in an ultimate sense. In my experience, people find and elucidate patterns, for whatever reason. For other reasons, we seem to think that finding a pattern (particularly one that makes useful predictions) means that we have explained something. IMO, finding the pattern that two hydrogen and one oxygen constitute all water molecules never truly explains the fundamental existence and experience of water itself. Yet we search nonetheless, thinkign there's something to be found; that there's something we're missing. We are already complete humans. It harkens a parable:

A man once visited his doctor with complaints of pain. The doctor, naturally, inquired as to what the trouble was. The man replied, "It hurts when I do this" and proceeded to put his right arm behind his back grabbed above his left elbow. The doctor advised, "Then don't do that".

 

[Perfection]

This I'll agree with. (I still think your example was a confusing and round-about way to put this, though. ) However, this doesn't quite KO the materialist explanation of consciousness: it's just saying that it's impossible to understand fully, but not that it's inadequate. Now, tell me, do you beleive that it is inadequate, and that simple interactions of neurons can't explain consciousness, or what? I have a feeling that you do, but I don't want to make a hasty assumption.

It's in adequate in the same way quantum physics is inadequate at explaining chemistry. Not because its interactions don't drive the processes, it's because the emergant behavior is difficult to discern from the lower level processes.

 

[cgannon64]

OK, with the right definition of "soul" you might be able to make the question "why are souls conscious" go away. But making it go away by defining it away is not the same as answering it. Consider a "shmoul", which is also nonphysical and "unextended" (occupying no space) just as souls are for Descartes. But a "shmoul" is by definition not-conscious. (I just made this word up, so I get to define it however I want.) Why do we have souls and not shmouls?

Shmouls are a useless proposition, that add nothing... so why would we beleive in them? Souls are proposed because they are useful - they provide a framework for belief that fits into the real world.

Next, consider "protomental quarks" and "protomental leptons". These, by definition, are physical particles obeying the same laws that quarks and leptons in the real world obey. Also by definition, they are the kind of things that when arranged in certain specific ways, collectively embody certain thoughts and feelings. We leave undefined the issue of whether real quarks and leptons are the protomental kind or some other kind. Still, on the hypothesis that real quarks and leptons are the protomental kind, it automatically follows that physical beings like us would be conscious.

This is a good explanation, but a little unsatisfying - if only cuz it's disarmingly simple, I guess. "Why does consciousness result from this arrangement of molecules?" "Because consciousness is a property of molecules arranged in this way."

I think materialism does explain consciousness in the first sense of "explain". In the second sense, it doesn't, and nothing else does either.

Hm. I see your thinking here, and I like it.

No theory can fully explain why consciousness exists instead of no consciousness existing. So, this fact should not be held against materialism.

Yes - but, for materialism to be complete (that's a big statement, but I mean, complete so far, as far as I can see) is to include consciousness definitively, in the way you talk about with "protomental" particles. Of course, it could be argued that materialism already does this implicitly.

Reality, consciousness, what have you, needs no explanation and cannot have one in an ultimate sense.

Damn it... I did not come into this thread wanting explanations like this; nor have I, in all my philosophical thinking, really accepted that I mightbe forced to, one day, accept them.

It's in adequate in the same way quantum physics is inadequate at explaining chemistry. Not because its interactions don't drive the processes, it's because the emergant behavior is difficult to discern from the lower level processes.

It almost seems lame to call it "emergent behavior" that is "difficult to discern." It seems like more than that - it seems totally antithetical to the lower-level processes.

 

[Sidhe]

It almost seems lame to call it "emergent behavior" that is "difficult to discern." It seems like more than that - it seems totally antithetical to the lower-level processes.

Well I'd be interested to know how physics doesn't expain emergent chemicle interaction, I always got the impression that all properties of chemistry apart from the colour of the substance itself are to do with fairly predictable electromagnetic interactions, chemistry not being a strong subject for me I'm failing to understand precisely what this means?

I find looking to materialism alone for an explanation for consciousness is incredibly naive, but the looking for the explanation in the soul is probably even less apealing? How much does your soul weigh, what component of soul can we measure, that's a philosophical argument that give us no understanding of conciousness at all and never will. First prove God exists then establish evidence for a soul(unless you talking about some non corporal form of intelligence, that resides independantly from the body and of religion, but even then thats no better, why not look for the answers in psychology not in a soul?) if I'm looking for an explanation I wont dismiss the philosophical intangebles but I certainly wont be putting them in any paper I might write.

Whilst materialism can go a long way to providng answers of how the brain works, I seriously doubt it can make the jump from the physical to the properties of intellect such as creativity, intuition and inspiration. This is in the realms partly of the physical(nerupharmacology and physiology and the psychological, the interaction between thought and behaviour at a purely behavioural level. Looking at one without the other is about as revealing as looking a the back of a book is compared to reading it. There is no way you will ever be able to explain everything in terms of chemicle and biological interactions alone. And I am guessing probably psychologically either completley. There probably is a component that as I said before we need to be outside of to see and materialism even with the help of the sciences to me seems ill equipped to do it.

Besides materialism as an explanation for everything is an outmoded concept IMO.

 

[punkbass2000]

Damn it... I did not come into this thread wanting explanations like this;

It's not an explanation

 

[Ayatollah So]

Dude, this is such a cop-out! Your'e essentially saying, "I'm not gonna define what 'I' am since I know what it is, and stop asking me!"

It may seem academic and stupid to define precisely what the individual is, but I think it's important if a soul is not proposed. A soul clears up the question straightaway - an individual is his soul and the body just a means. But, without the soul, it is important: Cuz if you're going to define people by their bodies, we better establish what that means!

[...] this question still holds weight. What will damage or alter that single coherent agent? What will change it so much that we can't consider it the same agent that it was before?

I suspect you may be underestimating the power of simple facts like that if you grab my hand, the rest of me comes along. These facts leave very little ambiguity about where the boundaries of "me" are for day-to-day purposes.

For a lot of purposes tough issues don't matter. Consider transfer of property for example. Just let the property continue to be owned by the damaged person until he actually dies. If he becomes mentally incompetent, his heirs or his lawyer can manage the property in the meantime.

Here's an example where it does matter: if I get Alzheimer's, at what point could my wife take another lover (assuming she felt like it) without violating our marriage vows? In other words at what point do I stop being "me" and become a just-barely-a-person she takes care of? Here I don't think there is an exact answer. But, we can talk about (and have) such contingencies while we're healthy, so we know roughly how to deal with them.

Now, you might say that's just too weird. For example, some things will be clearly felt by this Alzheimer's patient - delight one minute, confusion the next, pain the next, etc. - but it will be neither simply true nor simply false that I will feel it. All I can say is, it's queer but you can get used to it.

Well then, if everyone is rational on some level, how much rationality is needed to put someone in jail, and how little to put someone into a mental asylum? Should smarter, more rational people get more jail time than dumber, less rational people? The problems in this defintion are real...

Now, this relates to something I said to WillJ: It seems cruel to punish a person like this. The possession may only be an illusion, but if it's a persistent one, than they're going to suffer for something they feel like they couldn't have avoided. Is that fair?

Someone who feels possessed probably has a serious mental illness, so I agree they shouldn't be punished. They should still be restrained, if they have assaulted or killed people.

There is a critical level of rationality, I believe. That's not to say that there aren't borderline cases, but most people fall on one side or the other. The critical level that makes you a free and responsible person is that your rational integration of your personality is self-sustaining and self-promoting. For example, when a new desire pops up you weigh it against other desires and come up with strategies for dealing with it; the rest of your desires and beliefs acknowledge its existence; etc. "Lately I'm craving fats and sweets but I won't let these cravings destroy my health". Moreover, you keep investigating your world, including yourself, and trying to improve your understanding. You are receptive to information communicated by others, and this information connects to the whole web of your psychology.

By contrast, a seriously mentally ill person often has large areas of denial. The beliefs and desires that are accessible to conversation, if the person is even capable of conversation, are only a fraction of those operating overall. The person has murderous impulses but sincerely denies that he does, for example. Any evidence to that effect vanishes into a black hole of denial. Or in some cases ("multiple personality"), first one subset of memories and knowledge is accessible to conversation, then later another subset. And so on. The pockets of rationality in the person aren't strong enough to drag the rest into the light of day.

I think the lack of freedom involved here is way more serious than you make it out to be.

OK seriously, what is wrong with the idea that at any moment I have a specific overall character, and any action of mine flows out of that character? Why should I want to pull actions out of a chaotic hat? Is "be yourself" not a license to be free?

 

[WillJ]

Hello, I'm back after getting a bunch of work done.

Cgannon, you raise a good question (the one about the boundary between self and "the outside"). The question has no perfectly clear answer, so I'll give an imperfect one.

Keep in mind I think the question, "Do we have a free will?" is a hopelessly simplistic question. It's not a yes or no matter, but a question of when and to what extent.

Obviously some external factors affect us. I wear a uniform to school every day, not because I love Oxford button-down shirts and khaki pants, but because if I wear something else, the privelege of getting a free education will be stripped away from me by the school principal.

And there are internal factors. Continuing from the above example, there is the fact that I actually value a free education. Certainly my parents had some say in that bit of my psyche, but I think I still had some input, judging by a comparison of myself and my classmates with similar parents.

So what is that I that had that input?

Well, 17 years ago, I was born. The thing that popped out of my mother 17 years ago was me. And then over time, environmental factors have shaped me. Nothing else has really shaped me, I suppose; it has all been my birth and then the environment.

Perhaps our attitude toward that is the (or a) source of our differences in this discussion. You might see my birth as merely an extension of my mother (I'm just extrapolating from evidence here ), but I see it as a new me. (And you might think I'm a slave to my birth; I think that makes no sense, although I'll admit it can make for some good sophistry.) Since my birth, I have been continuously reacting to my environment, taking into consideration the psyche that I was born with and then gradually working in new factors to expand my psyche, being logically consistent for the most part, and there---in the internal working of my psyche---lies my freedom.

Of course, there are problems with that, or any other, definition of myself. Or the definition of anything, for that matter. Think the ship of Theseus. And while this puzzle does have practical consequences, for the most I'm satisfied with that definition of myself.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So what is that I that had that input?

Well, 17 years ago, I was born. The thing that popped out of my mother 17 years ago was me. And then over time, environmental factors have shaped me. Nothing else has really shaped me, I suppose; it has all been my birth and then the environment.

Don't forget that most of who you are is genetically based; your culture (where, when and to whom you were born) plays a part and lastly, the larger envronment of your upbringing.

 

[WillJ]

Don't forget that most of who you are is genetically based; your culture (where, when and to whom you were born) plays a part and lastly, the larger envronment of your upbringing.

I don't disagree.

 

[Perfection]

Well I'd be interested to know how physics doesn't expain emergent chemicle interaction

To do chemistry you don't plug in stuff into the shrodinger equation. You don't explain chemistry with quantum mechanics. You have an entire system that is based of the emergent behavior.

The same is true with the brain. You can't explain it simply with chemistry.

But that doesn't mean that it's not the product of it.

 

[Sidhe]

To do chemistry you don't plug in stuff into the shrodinger equation. You don't explain chemistry with quantum mechanics. You have an entire system that is based of the emergent behavior.

The same is true with the brain. You can't explain it simply with chemistry.

But that doesn't mean that it's not the product of it.

Actually ermergant behaviour in chemistry is a result of the forces resultant in physics, if you look into physics then the electromagnetic force is simply the same force as the weak(nobel prise was doled out for proving this) and some postulate(einstein was one exponent) that all the forces are merely resultant of other forces at different energy levels and even the gravity of interaction of the electron with the nucleus is resultant of spin(a side effect of atomic interaction:controversial but at the heart of a debate about the graviton vs the idea that there is no boson for gravity) And not only that electrons behave according to QM theory in that they can behave in both wave and particular states, particularly free electrons in how electrons behave when the matter in question is frozen down to a certain level, that the matter itself becomes subject to Boze-Einstein condensate theory. Every part of every chemicle theory is at heart explained by physics it is the fundemental of all matter and energy interpretation(nothing it says in any way disagrees with chemsitry, quite the contrary) From quantum tunneling making microchips unable to function beyond the micro level to a single electron in an atom. Emergent behaviour is fine but emergant behaviour at the macro level is dictated by behaviour at a more fundemental level. Look into physics you will see this to be self evident. If you don't then you can't understand the theory on a macro level. Nothing in QM theory destroys emergent behaviour, in fact it closely agrees with it, in order to understand that you need to look at what it is your talking about as reguards chemistry(classical theory at a more macro level) and the interdependance on quantum theory. I disagree there is no dispute between QM and Chemistry biology or any other science, the only dispute is that chemists lack the knowledge in other fields to understand the physical principles. I'm no expert but part of the course I'll study in a year or two's time relies on explaining why the whole picture from fundemental QM to chemistry is reliant on the fundementals and agrees(in fact the course description goes out of it's way to assert this) I'm but a novice but how do you say that there is no correlation? when the physics I've read says the opposite? It has me stumped, because physisists don't see it? as a contradiction only chemists do? Explain why chemistry is not consistant with physics? Don't dumb it down, I know enough about the subject and know enough chemists to ask why this is so?

 

[Perfection]

Actually ermergant behaviour in chemistry is a result of the forces resultant in physics

That's what I said, however we don't just use physics to investigate it.

I'm but a novice but how do you say that there is no correlation? when the physics I've read says the opposite? It has me stumped, because physisists don't see it? as a contradiction only chemists do? Explain why chemistry is not consistant with physics? Don't dumb it down, I know enough about the subject and know enough chemists to ask why this is so?

It's not that it's contradictory or uncorrelated. If just that if you want to understand chemistry just knowing the physics behind it isn't going to help you much. It would be pointless insanely difficult and stupid to try to understand acid-base equilibria in terms of QED.

Cgannon seems to think that we need explain conciousness with physics to say it is physically based when in reality we only need to draw interdisciplinary parrelels and ensure tht they are consistant.

 

[cgannon64]

I suspect you may be underestimating the power of simple facts like that if you grab my hand, the rest of me comes along. These facts leave very little ambiguity about where the boundaries of "me" are for day-to-day purposes.

For a lot of purposes tough issues don't matter. Consider transfer of property for example. Just let the property continue to be owned by the damaged person until he actually dies. If he becomes mentally incompetent, his heirs or his lawyer can manage the property in the meantime.

I'm not doubting the usefulness of these day-to-day explanations - I'm just doubting their overall veracity. Since, after all, the only real defense of htem is that, "This works most of the time, so let's use it most of the time!"

Here's an example where it does matter: if I get Alzheimer's, at what point could my wife take another lover (assuming she felt like it) without violating our marriage vows? In other words at what point do I stop being "me" and become a just-barely-a-person she takes care of? Here I don't think there is an exact answer. But, we can talk about (and have) such contingencies while we're healthy, so we know roughly how to deal with them.

Now, you might say that's just too weird. For example, some things will be clearly felt by this Alzheimer's patient - delight one minute, confusion the next, pain the next, etc. - but it will be neither simply true nor simply false that I will feel it. All I can say is, it's queer but you can get used to it.

I don't think we should even surmise as to what Alzheimer's feel like. Let's not answer that hypothetical, because I think it's outside the range of our knowledge.

There is a critical level of rationality, I believe. That's not to say that there aren't borderline cases, but most people fall on one side or the other. The critical level that makes you a free and responsible person is that your rational integration of your personality is self-sustaining and self-promoting. For example, when a new desire pops up you weigh it against other desires and come up with strategies for dealing with it; the rest of your desires and beliefs acknowledge its existence; etc. "Lately I'm craving fats and sweets but I won't let these cravings destroy my health". Moreover, you keep investigating your world, including yourself, and trying to improve your understanding. You are receptive to information communicated by others, and this information connects to the whole web of your psychology.

By contrast, a seriously mentally ill person often has large areas of denial. The beliefs and desires that are accessible to conversation, if the person is even capable of conversation, are only a fraction of those operating overall. The person has murderous impulses but sincerely denies that he does, for example. Any evidence to that effect vanishes into a black hole of denial. Or in some cases ("multiple personality"), first one subset of memories and knowledge is accessible to conversation, then later another subset. And so on. The pockets of rationality in the person aren't strong enough to drag the rest into the light of day.

This argument has shifted. I have no doubt that crazy people are less rational than sane people, which is what you seem to be out to prove. The point originally was that you were using rationality as a definition of control/free will , and that is a dubious trick that totally changes the words' meanings. You said that rationality was what merited someone jailtime, since someone who is rational is in control - and my point was that a rational person is no more in control than an irrational person. The former is at the mercy of their rationality, and the latter is at the mercy of their irrationality - what's the difference? Why are we deciding one means responsibility, and one doesn't?

OK seriously, what is wrong with the idea that at any moment I have a specific overall character, and any action of mine flows out of that character? Why should I want to pull actions out of a chaotic hat? Is "be yourself" not a license to be free?

What is wrong with it: It's precisely the opposite of freedom. (I know there are many problems with any attempt to posit free will - but I also know, with even more certainty, that not having free will violates my instinct, and is extremely destructive to any philosophy.)

Since my birth, I have been continuously reacting to my environment, taking into consideration the psyche that I was born with and then gradually working in new factors to expand my psyche, being logically consistent for the most part, and there---in the internal working of my psyche---lies my freedom.

This summary is only palatable because, once again, the language is flawed. You did not react to the enviroment in the way the language means, you did not consider things, you did not work in things. This sounds all nice because the subject of these phrases is 'me' - and that immediately inspires my vision of myself acting freely in my mind - when a much more accurate subject would be 'the collection of effects of prior causes'.

The only idea that results from your philosophy (to me at least) is this: I have nothing more than a window on the world. That is what consciousness is: powerless viewing.

Now, how can anyone beleive that all the time? Or, how can you go from your premises to your beliefs to a worldview different than that?

 

[Sidhe]

That's what I said, however we don't just use physics to investigate it.

It's not that it's contradictory or uncorrelated. If just that if you want to understand chemistry just knowing the physics behind it isn't going to help you much. It would be pointless insanely difficult and stupid to try to understand acid-base equilibria in terms of QED.

Cgannon seems to think that we need explain conciousness with physics to say it is physically based when in reality we only need to draw interdisciplinary parrelels and ensure tht they are consistant.

And you people wonder why I find you all so frustratingly obtuse

Yes and of course QM doesn't impinge on anything at all. I totally agree with the sentiment, but I think people who keep saying QM principals don't have any effect on the human conciousness are in denial. Let's dismiss physics from the equation because it's uncomfortable and besides physics never has an effect on the conciousness, I know this because? At the very least people should be asking if it has an effect not stating blindly that it doesn't like some scientific malfunctioning robot with little or no understanding of the theory. Fine we can dismiss Einsteinian theory that time has no direction, no reliance on other moments in time and the past isn't predetermined, well because it's uncomfortable. You guys are funny not one of you is making any viable contribution unless you chose to accept all sciences into the discussion your just rattling off hot air.

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~lehrer/free_will/Outline_of_Hobbs.html

This discussion is circular self defeating and dismissive of scientific theory. I hearby declare your posts as religion.

Quantum effects the macro, they tend to average out in the long run, or the probablilities tend to agree with qm predictions, but the very fact that they effect the real world is a reason to acknowledge it at least. Without predeterminism in any direction in time then materialism can't be a viable theory. Not saying it doesn't play a part but if you acknowledge that materialism cannot explain all the factors in conciousness then you've got to stop saying that it does at some point. DNA uses QM principles to order it's Transcription processes and to improve efficiency, OK I can't find the damn article but it exists trust me and it is a paper published by NASA, you'd of thought with the number of so called scientists in this forum someone might be able to find it but no obviously not, find it because it's an anoyance and it would make a nonsense of materialsim. Ahhg someone find the damn article so we can discuss it and link it.

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QuanCon.html

Quantum biology read it it's interesting.

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/

A web site that discusses conciousnes usefull, read it, might stop people from making spurious claims that free will is illusory.

 

[Perfection]

And you people wonder why I find you all so frustratingly obtuse

It's quite simple, your arguements suck.

but I think people who keep saying QM principals don't have any effect on the human conciousness are in denial.

I don't deny that there aren't any effects on the macro scale, I deny that any of these effects are noticable or worthwhile of discusion. Who care's if there's a vanishingly small possibility that something might happen some other way at the macro scale? Did you ever stop andthink why almost all professionals who advocate this don't have background in physics?

Give me some experiments, then we'll talk.

 

[Sidhe]

Great counter argument, you don't deserve to be on this thread did you even read any of the links. If I ever used the ignore you'd be the first person on my list. What an ignorant and frankly pathetic response.

What do you want me to do Ring up NASA and demand they give me the paper on DNA and Quantum mechanics principles?

AS for experiments why don't you go learn something about physics by actually visiting web sights that explore this very issue, you might just notice then that there are plenty of people working on the experiments you ask for. Oh no go back and live in ignorant world with your overinflated ego for company.

Did you ever stop andthink why almost all professionals who advocate this don't have background in physics?

Give me some experiments, then we'll talk.

How about NASA do they not have a background in Physics

Type in NASA nanotech and DNA into google, if you can find the experiments then you can stop talking nuts.

I think I'm gonna have to scan that DNA article from the copy of new scientist as for some reason I can't find it, but then I don't have acces to the new scientist archive or a scanner.

I contest your assertion I say it is your ideas that suck because you have no idea what is happening in the physics world ATM. Yes you suck and you suck big

OK let's break it down so the remedial can understand it

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/ A part of the University of Arizona

These guys are doing experiments that are referenced in this on quantum effects in the human brain

Which are explored here

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QuanCon.html

Now kindly read links people post, stop talking total rubbish and dissapear back into you hole I thank you

Good lord some people are frighteningly ignorant sometimes. I give him research and experiments by credible scientists and he asks me for experiments?

Are you honestly seriously telling me that you need them or are you winding me up?

 

[Perfection]

Great counter argument, you don't deserve to be on this thread did you even read any of the links.

Yeah, it's philosophical prattle, not science. Wanna claim science supports it? Give me science!

If I ever used the ignore you'd be the first person on my list. What an ignorant and frankly pathetic response.

Only the best and the brightest get on people's ignore lists!

Seriously, it's true! In CFC the people who get put on ignore more than anyone else in these kinds of threads are professional scientists and me! I feel honored!

Now let me ask you this, what the hell does quantum effects on DNA have to with the application of uncertainty principle to human conciousness?

It's like I ask for video of a tiger on a unicycle and you give me a picture of a mouse being pulled around in a wagon!

It's not the same thing!