What I like about a consciousness model built up from the neuron level is there are known events such as the firing of neurons that correlate to mental activity and you can have active and inactive states. Can you identify anything at the quantum level that always correlates to mental activity, can be turned off and on, or is some kind of switching device that could play a role in decision making? And why would these capabilities exist only in the brains of biological organisms? Has our genetic code found some way to exploit quantum phenomenon? And what quantum phenomenon would there be at the temperature our brains function? — Mark Nyquist

I've been informed that the phosphates of ATP (adenosine triphosphate), a primary energy storage molecule in organisms, may be able to sustain superpositions for almost a second, so human body temperature is close to being proven conducive. I assume the mechanism would be a sort of cyclical pulsing between coherence states and "wave function collapse" or decoherence.

If you have enough of these molecular superpositions in close proximity, even if they only last a second, biochemical pathways might be generated that are effectively always in an "on" state of superposition, responsible for the fact that particular percepts are sustained for long periods during certain kinds of conscious awareness.

The steady state holism of consciousness would be due to the brain's electromagnetic field creating a global substrate within which these particular percepts are lodged, blended into this field by electric charge, which is a force capable of influencing the behavior of photons and electrons by moving them about and inducing them to cohere. Of course neuronal connections play a role in producing the electromagnetic field among additional functions, but the substance of subjective particularity would be these quantum biochemical pathways within cells.

This is all still speculative, but its the only explanation I've encountered that can get past the philosophical complications of consciousness theory. Dualism doesn't technically work, physicalism also, but a panprotopsychism based on quantum theory makes mechanistic sense. It's the only option so far that has any possibility of explaining how mind and matter coexist, all of its facets are falsifiable, and it makes intuitive sense.

An aspect of this theory is that percepts are unconstrained to biological form as thus far modeled. It allows for the possibility that beings exist with a structural design not dependent on genes, membranes, carbon, or any substances that the human body is based around. So the kinds of consciousness that can potentially be accounted for expands greatly.

Some further implications have already been mentioned, such as building elements of subjectivity into electronic devices and devising medical treatments and enhancements for organic processes that have traditionally been regarded as subjective.

You might be able to think of some objections, and if so I'd like to read them.

philosophy throwdown! lol

Of course you think. But "lol"? What are you? 12? — Alkis Piskas

Giving me crap for my lol's? That is neither philosophically relevant nor intellectually sound, and is unequivocally incorrigible.

How can you expect someone to read more of the topic if you start it with a whole paragraph that sounds like gibberish? — Alkis Piskas

Hate to break it to you, but I think its pretty damn easy to understand lol

That's the complication: in order for it to become safe and effective, very influential interests have to get involved, and as soon as very influential interests get involved, an agenda not usually to the benefit of the less influential begins to materiaize and cause problems. The internet provides copious evidence of the trainwrecks that entirely bottom-up organizing cause. But perhaps a way exists...

Thinking about the possibilities and hurdles kind of provides a commentary on modern life.

I think its a great idea, an effective way for those from all different kinds of background to acquaint with the origins of their opinions and beliefs in centuries-old schools of thought. I know I would be interested!

It probably requires a strong commitment by some very competent professional philosophers or some cadre familiar with a lot of primary sources to really get going.

Of course all the quirks of life such as time constraints etc. are a barrier. For me, I have a medical condition that doesn't cause physical interference, I mean I see the page and understand the concepts well enough, but my ability to strongly commit towards reading a lot of material in depth from many different eras on my own can be limited. If a lot of interested parties were willing to support participants such that a safe and welcoming literary climate is created, it could be amazing, even revolutionary. But easier said than done.

(Many are inclined to want to kick my ass because I have a fudged up brain in exactly the worst kind of way lol Still searching for a cure.)

I don't think Enrique is claiming he came up will all this completely by himself. — bert1

My thoughts are probably influenced the most by Johnjoe McFadden's book Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology, plus a lot of additional reading about quantum physics.

The OP is a paragraph drawn from the end of an essay, not really designed to justify everything. Its a conversation starter that doesn't stand alone, you've got to read the entire thread! I'm not being exhibitionistic, merely trying to refine my ideas by eliciting some constructive feedback from a few dudes, and you'll see that my theory did improve because of this discussion.

Do you distinguish between experience, mind, awareness and consciousness? How do you define consciousness, because definitions become important and these terms are bandied about like synonyms. Human consciousness must have its evolutionary antecedents and thus there are varying degrees of mind and experience throughout nature. All may have the same ontologic or metaphysical source which is where speculative metaphysics may come in. — prothero

I come from the perspective that all definitions are going to be anthrocentric, so I accept a somewhat biased perspective as a valid starting point for determining what consciousness is instead of seeking an absolute definition.

From an earlier post: "I regard human sentience as the somewhat arbitrary standard for what is conscious, just as the visible spectrum is our standard for what light is, corresponding to the brain and eye respectively." So if it has percepts of feeling, sensation, thought, etc., it is indisputably conscious to some degree, kind of like an expanded Turing test including objective factors. If it has the same or similar brain physiology and chemistry to the kind that produces consciousness in humans, it is especially certain that it is conscious, so all of kingdom animalia for instance is obviously conscious in my opinion. (We know this intuitively anyways, but it is possible to strongly prove it scientifically).

We don't have a good standard yet for determining what the chemistry of percepts is, but if a quantum theory of perception supplies that, it will be possible to classify exactly how conscious many much simpler species or divergent structural forms are by comparison with humans, just as we use the presence of metabolism, membranes, reproduction etc. to decide whether a creature is living, and of course borderline cases occur.

It might be necessary to modify this outlook somewhat as it relates to computers, but exactly how is not certain yet, and hopefully we can prevent the conundrum for some time by avoiding generalized AI (a sentient, independently evolving virtual organism) in favor of specialized AI (algorithms designed to work with specific analytical problems or tasks) until human society is ethically prepared, if ever.

This definition is entirely epistemological, not metaphysical at all.

What should be clear is you will not find consciousness in an EEG or in Quantum states, or any specific structure or neurotransmitter. Consciousness requires an intact, functional, unified integrated neural network other mental functions require the intactness of different brain networks and structures. — prothero

I'm not saying everything the brain does is consciously aware, and that's why my view is panprotopsychism. But I do regard consciousness as relatively fundamental. How frequently during the day are you unconscious yet functional? Probably only while in certain sleep stages, and it is a very constrained functionality.

If my quantum theory is accurate, it might be possible to experience percepts without being aware of it, in bacteria for instance, or to be aware without much sense of self and no concept of identity, as is probably the case in an organism such as a caterpillar.

I think it is becoming outdated to think of the mind as built primarily out of neural connections. That stratum of functionality has an important role, but so much of what we experience cannot be explained by action potentials or synapses. Percepts such as feelings, images and thoughts must in large measure be caused by something more that we haven't discovered yet. Finding the mechanisms of percepts, the classes of molecule involved in new kinds of biochemical pathways, can in my opinion help transition neuroscience from correlation to direct causation.

But great post nonetheless, doing research into the details of neurology is helpful for this topic.

So my point is the physical brain (either classical or quantum) has the ability to contain mental content. I think you are mistaking mental content for quantum states. — Mark Nyquist

Brain function isn't only neural memory, though representations etched in biochemical and physiological structure are of course important. That kind of process is certainly a component, but the brain projects as much if not more than it absorbs from the environment. So all those classifications you listed are significantly generated from within the brain itself, as a spontaneous outcome of its internal composition.

It's been a mystery how percepts are projected and combined at all within the brain when matter has thus far been regarded as trillions of separate, quantized atoms. At this point, I'm suggesting that the binding agent is electric charge interactions which sustain coherences (entangled superpositions) between the brain's electromagnetic field and multimolecular quantum fields in biochemical pathways, binding trillions of particles into a fairly integrated stream of consciousness that appears to us as an array of simultaneous percepts (images, thoughts, feelings, etc.) within the medium of awareness.

So what I'm explaining is consciousness' contribution to appearances as opposed to what impinges on it from the environment, which is a nebulous distinction at this stage of neuroscience.

Your precious EEG rhythms are an artefact of a measuring method that offers 1ms temporal resolution but 1cm spatial resolution. — apokrisis

Much more sensitive EEG devices capable of reading periodic oscillations or "waves" as you're so loathe to think of them from the brain's deep structure are being developed as we speak. Very influential and moneyed organizations such as governments have recognized that brain wave analysis is key to comprehending consciousness. EEG is going to be extremely useful in modeling brain function as this technology advances. This isn't your 70's EEG!

But the qualitative nature of consciousness, 'what it is like to feel something', is what makes the hard problem a problem. And the reason it's a hard problem is because it can't be represented in the third person, only experienced or felt or lived in the first person. — Wayfarer

The reason I think a quantum theory of consciousness could be a leap beyond current neuroscience in solving the hard problem is because, if we consider visualizing an image in our minds or feeling a sensation, the image or sensation is no longer merely produced by action potentials or neurotransmitters as some mysterious supervenient substance, it is the quantum superposition, precisely. The resonant color of the superposition is the subjective color of the mental image, and the quantum resonance of the sensation is the feeling. We will have identity rather than correlation, no gap between matter and percepts, and the basic mind/body problem is resolved. Of course it will turn out to be more complex than only that, but research in principle might be able to model percepts as if they are objects.

This does not diminish the fact that a subjective aspect of experience exists which in its stark immediacy proves ineffable or personal from a certain perspective, but we would be able to perform feats such as creating elements of humanlike subjectivity in electronic devices or repairing, treating and enhancing the physiology and biochemistry of subjectivity in organisms because this subjectivity will at that point be modeled as a material substance with physical structure.

The word is equilibrated, not saturated. Like biochemistry in general. Every positive charge is balanced by a negative charge to the level where charge fluctuations don’t make a difference and every charge is under the cell’s regulatory thumb. — apokrisis

Sure electric charge in the brain is relatively balanced on a global scale, but obviously ion flow induces charge fluctuations that pervasively disequilibrate pockets of brain tissue and which must be producing brain "waves" or periodic oscillations if you like (exactly how the combinatorial process unfolds is admittedly still uncertain). Soma are billions of pockets, replete with trillions of pockets of quantum machinery, and electric charge is the binding agent that integrates the brain's electromagnetic field with this quantum machinery's tunnelings, superpositions and entanglements. So perhaps what we lacked was a binding mechanism more technical than the liquid analogy. The mechanism might be electric charge! What say you?

And what we can say is the brain is very concerned about shuttling ions to build up local mechanical gradients across membranes regulated by pores. — apokrisis

Not merely mechanical, but quantum mechanical, meaning that principles of tunneling, entanglement, superposition and nonlocality are at work. This must be especially true of the leakage of electrical waves through the synaptic cleft into the soma where delicate and diverse biochemical pathways as standing wave structures are more sustainable than in axons or dendrites.

If brain waves are measurable on a macroscopic scale, you can't tell me that almost every cell body isn't saturated with electric charge, the main mechanism of emergent organization from quantum nonlocality amongst all electromagnetic matter. Brain waves and their effects as mediated by electric charge, exacted on various scales of emergence, must engage in not just vertical causality but lateral causality, so that top-down effects on tissue are produced.

So if you want a general mechanism that applies to near instantaneous entanglement, superposition and tunneling, a coordinating phenomenon that effectuates simultaneity and integration, it is probably charge distribution. Perhaps it is not matter waves analogous to a liquid, but rather pulsing charge fluctuations that result in brain waves, and this would most certainly have nondissipative effects.

I think you're making a good point that perhaps relates to higher levels of intentionality, but could you be more specific? Don't mean to put you on the spot necessarily, be as concise as you like, or just ignore me lol

In humans, no doubt. But not in rocks, because rocks don't have brains. — bert1

That's actually a somewhat complicated issue from the perspective of panprotopsychism lol

You are pinning all your hopes on some kind of coherent electromagnetic flux but what brain waves measure is the incoherent entropy of the dissipative physics of neurons... — apokrisis

The electrical energy of brain waves is not dissipative like heat, it is in large measure contained within neural networks to produce an ultracoordinated pattern. The readout of an EEG varies in a nuanced way as you move the sensitivity around to different portions of the brain, so much so that a neurologist can deduce the patient's cognitive profile, indicating that brain waves, unlike light and heat, are intimately correlated with specific behavior of the matter in that location.

A certain synchrony characterizes healthy conscious states, an emergent property of relatively macroscale current flows. When the mind encounters a novel or startling stimulus, this synchrony temporarily breaks down some, indicating that portions of the brain are processing more independently on a smaller scale, then resumes once the stimulus has been integrated. In mental illness, the brain's default condition is to be in a less synchronous state. This is the principle behind neurofeedback treatment: the patient looks at a screen while wearing an EEG style headset during multiple sessions, and using their mind to win the video game, visual feedback recalibrates brain waves to synchrony, commonly curing the ailment.

Brain waves are closely related to states of awareness, reducible to increasingly local behaviors of brain matter which produce unique signatures that blend into the emergent patterns current EEG technology observes. Brain waves are not chaotic noise, they are a functional component of consciousness that varies in a systematic way depending on degree of emergence, but we don't at this point have a model of exactly how they interact with brain matter to generate percepts. That is a research angle my theory is motivated to pursue.

Neuroplasticity tells us that established information is memorized in physical structure somehow. This is consistent with Constructivism, which suggests information accumulation is how knowledge is built. The way we thought about things yesterday, determines how we think about them today, which determines how we think about them tomorrow, more or less. So there is a construction going on - a building onto established knowledge, which is memorized in physical structure - this past knowledge is also integrated in a moment of consciousness. See my reply to Bert1 above. Any idea how this might occur from your perspective? — Pop

I think memory is an at least partially separate mechanism from the stream of consciousness I was talking about. Memory basically consists of a record of perceptual experiences etched into brain chemistry and neuronal connections, much like a hard drive, which then participates in projecting or organizing stream of consciousness by virtue of the stored information's structure. So for instance axons and dendrites might, because of the way they are linked in a network, generate a specific collective response in the quantum biochemistry of adjacent soma, perturbing the brain's electromagnetic field and prompting it to self-directedly change its behavior (current flow) at the more generalized level (this process is not deterministic in a single direction, from holism to particularity or vice versa).

So its like a feedback between EM field perceptual holism, the perceptual particularity of quantum wavicle assemblages, and whatever mechanisms sustain a representation of previous states which are then built upon and modified by further experience. Different parts of the mind can proceed in contrasting directions at a given moment, from holism to particularity, from particularity to holism, or between representational memory and either. Perhaps the quantum wavicle assemblages are a mediator between memory and the EM field. I'm not sure what the mechanisms of representational memory are exactly, but neural networking surely plays a major role.

I'm actually publishing a paper in a scientific journal next month that explains perception in a much more organized and thorough way, looking forward to finally getting my ideas some serious exposure!

So in what way is a brain wave the same thing as a quantum wave? And what way is either like a ripple on a pond? — apokrisis

How a wavicle is turned into a symbol by neurobiology may be explained by simple neural networks. — Pop

Is any of what Apo said relevant to your theory? — bert1

I concede that the readout on an EEG machine isn't of course what brain waves actually look like, but the readout is representing a real wave oscillation generated in the brain by neurons which synapse in unison on the order of billions. The actual brain wave is a flux in matter caused by periodic flow of electrical potential, a current like a battery's that courses through the organ. This flow within neurons creates an oscillating field extending throughout the entire brain.

As in magnetoreception, pockets of quantum behavior in the soma and perhaps elsewhere have probably adapted for very specific sensitivity to the brain's EM field, and these wavicle assemblies superposition or blend into the global current as the particularate yet integrated substance of qualitative perception.

So neural networks produce the integrated field that is consciousness, and quantum biochemical pathways produce the particulars of sensation. Consciousness is exacted as a steady state holism because of the integrating EM field, but we partially sense and feel the world as dispersed in space due to the quantum processes.

Does that make sense yet to you guys?

Correct, but this also means your QM stuff has to ultimately resolve to physical structure - so has to interact and integrate with physical structure. How does it do that? How does a wavicle create biological structure and why?

Your theory lacks a definition of consciousness, and an overall plot. Simply stating QM is at the heart of consciousness in the brain is not enough. Are you describing a dualism? It seems to me you would need a monism / panpschism for your theory to be coherent? — Pop

Probably what I'm in the process of trying to figure out. In general, I think various types of motion exist in physics - linear, oscillating, interactive, perhaps you can think of more - and the properties of these motions vary, most foundationally as a function of differentials in the concentration of a single substance, so my view is a form of monism.

The wavelength/frequency properties of matter are of course a type of oscillating motion, with these oscillations combining (interactive) and flowing (linear) as well.

I guess my pet theory is that waves and wavicles throughout nature combine as readily as a body of water whether we directly witness this or not, and these hybrids comprise both image qualia (dimensional) and nonimage qualia (feeling). But this matter is also extremely quantized, at least on the microscopic scale, which significantly disassociates it, so only specific, very complex and hyperorganized arrangements can give rise to complex qualitative experience, yet the possibilities are vast and far exceed the bounds of biological taxonomy as we currently define it. So that is why my view is a version of panprotopsychism: the actual substance of perception is present at the nano and micro scale, much more fundamental to matter than the level of organization that gives rise to either biological form or humanlike sentience. I regard human sentience as the somewhat arbitrary standard for what is conscious, just as the visible spectrum is our standard for what light is, corresponding to the brain and eye respectively.

That's my rough and ready idea of how to define physical structure's relationship to consciousness. Interesting to ponder how nonlocal causation might fit with this.

'Making up shit' (woo-of-the-gaps) is always easier than ... reasoning to the best explanation (science) ... or admitting you/we just don't know (philosophy). Law of the least mental effort. — 180 Proof

ga ga goo goo lol

I’ve read those books. I even argued the issues with McFadden when he was first pushing an EM field story in the 1990s. The sort of nonsense you are peddling was done to death back then. Meanwhile science has rolled on and found where biology actually does exploit quantum loopholes to allow hyper efficient semiotic control over the energetic basis of life. — apokrisis

If you've read Smolin's book I'm surprised you don't assign more weight to the phenomenon of wave and wavicle blending. As he says, "that is what waves do". Superposition seems fundamental to matter and should be expected as a primary dynamic in many situations. Of course I'm referring to the physical occurrence, not the mathematical techniques for modeling it.

It doesn't seem to me that my view much differs from your perspective, it is merely proposing one more type of semiotic/energetic mechanism which happens to explain the qualia of consciousness. Perhaps certain forms of contact between waves and wavicles are an additional tipping point where the classical gives way to the quantumlike.

It’s just quantum nonsense, an abuse of terminology rather than a concrete conjecture. Nothing to see here. — apokrisis

What, you can't admit defeat? j/k Its actually almost excessively concrete, not nonsense at all. You may not have the same conceptual background to my verbiage, but if not I suggest reading Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology by Johnjoe McFadden and Einstein's Unfinished Revolution: The Search for What Lies Beyond the Quantum by Lee Smolin. They're fairly easy reads and will stimulate a lot of productive thought about quantum mechanics.

First of all, information is merely relations between physical entities viewed from our modeling perspective, a distinctly human formal causality. "Information" is a reifying of all the observed causal interactions between a given set of existents, and lacks independence from matter. The information a gene, quantum process etc. contains is not ontologically distinguishable from the structure of its components, so any realist account of biological occurrences must involve a substance, not a probability.

I'm not familiar with the mathematical deep structure of contemporary quantum mechanics, the complex calculations that would be performed by a computer for instance to figure quantum probabilities, though I comprehend the basic variables and their correlations from a lot of reading, but I've gathered that superpositions are modeled as a synthesis of infinite possible states called Eigenstates (perhaps you know more about this than me). Infinitude must be allowing these calculations to output the probabilities of a future moment from initial conditions with negligible error.

But in the real world, superpositions are not a combination of infinite states. Instead, they are the synthesis of a finite range of wavelengths. The simplest example is the visible spectrum: wavelengths of light hybridize in innumerable but constrained combinations to give the full complement of colors as detectable by the human eye. This hybridization is essentially waves blending to form new compound wavelengths.

My hypothesis is that the same process happens on a profound scale throughout Earth environments because all matter has entangled wavelength. In particular, electrons are in pervasive superposition or wave blending everywhere around us, both within and between molecules. From a realist perspective, the concept of a molecule may be convenient illusion: a metal post is about as entangled as matter can get.

My thinking is that while superposition is common, even perhaps intrinsic, due to various causes such as temperature, chemical structure etc. theses superpositions dissolve as quickly as they materialize in many cases. But in some situations, superpositions can be sustained for longer periods. This is particularly true of the brain and many biological systems which have been evolutionarily adapted for sustaining or generating superpositions. With enough emergent organization this gives rise to the substance of qualitative perception, obviously the core of functional experience.

Brain waves are emergent from the flow of electrical potential in billions of synchronized neurons, and biochemical superpositions in the soma and most likely elsewhere blend into this macroscopic wave field to create organwide coherence (superpositioned entanglement) states with many trillions of pockets of quantum activity. These microscale quantum pockets blended into the brain's EM field are qualia. It has not been discovered which classes of molecule participate in this neurological process, but it will be.

I also hypothesize that entangled superpositions amongst matter may extend beyond electrons, perhaps in fields which haven't been observed directly at this point (think dark matter, or neutrino interactions with the nucleus), and these nonelectromagnetic entanglements might be largely responsible for nonlocal causation. Reality is comprised of a more essential substrate than what has been detected so far, and this will be the key to comprehending nonlocality.

Much of that is speculative, but not at all farfetched Mr. Muddled Woo lol

I'll start by admitting I don't really know what this means. I doubt any credible physicist, biologist, neurologist, psychologist, or any other scientist believes that a mechanism such as what you have described explains consciousness. You should provide a better description of the mechanism you're discussing and some references. — T Clark

I didn't intro that very aptly, its a paragraph from near the end of an essay, but if you read the rest of this thread, you'll get the idea I think.

I'm wondering what physical scale and what mechanism is at work. A neuron has about 100 trillion atoms and has an active state when firing and an inactive (very stable) state when not firing. So I would identify this as a significant scale and mechanism (for consciousness). — Mark Nyquist

Traditional neuron chemistry is of course a factor in consciousness, synaptic connections, neurotransmitters, ion channels etc., but seems to me that chemical composition of the soma must play a vital role via the cytoskeleton holding biochemical pathways in place, which are a sort of oscillating standing wave, such that some coordination of superposition states can occur, perhaps with accompanying wave function collapse. These superpositions would actually be subjective color and feeling, matter wave images or some such entity projected within the brain like a negative photograph in the case of sight and visualizing, a collection of quantum superpositions at the nerve ending and elsewhere in the case of tactile sensations, etc. My guess is the basic chemistry is intracellular, while the synthesis and projection phenomenon can be relatively macroscopic. Brain waves are some large scale signatures of these oscillating superpositions.

Talking about the role quantum mechanics plays in any purported 'theory of consciousness' is like talking about the role QM plays in a theory of music – reductionist pseudo-scientistic nonsense – because classical structures like neurons are too hot for quantum states (e.g. entanglement, superposition) to cohere at all (vide Stenger, pace Penrose). — 180 Proof

Wouldn't it be awesome to know how water nymphs and totem gods function? lol Quantum theory is not the final say, but it is the gateway my friend. (And superpositions can exist at body temperature for at least a second, e.g. ATP molecules).

The root of evil is fundamentally a forced reaction to something repugnant like mutilation or debauchery. Evil makes us conflicted as we must choose between sustaining or relinquishing our humaneness or the humaneness of those around us. An experience veers into the territory of evil when it requires us to be callous in order to cope.

It is interesting how evil differs by context, especially when depicted artistically vs. being involved or a direct witness vs. the evil moment being absolutely unavoidable as in war. War almost seems like an authoritarian pretext for getting people to accept evil, arising from ulterior, perhaps manipulative motives.

Moving from the quantum to the macroscopic world is essentially just a type of phase-transition. — Pantagruel

Quantum features of matter aren't even as constrained as a phase change. The way I see it, electron orbitals and electromagnetic radiation are different forms of the same electromagnetic field, with electrons within atoms being a more concentrated fluxing in complex standing wave patterns as opposed to radiative, their structure induced by the nucleus in likeness to magnetic field lines.

What we traditionally think of as a chemical bond happens to be centered on the infrared, "heat" portion of the spectrum, a radiation which atoms are so to speak bathed in, but thermodynamic properties vary continuously with visible light and the rest of the electromagnetic wavelengths, so that no fundamental disjunct or boundary between motions induced by heat, light and particularity exists. Decoherence may be an epiphenomenon in the infrared portion of the spectrum while quantum degrees of freedom remain unperturbed at alternate wavelengths, even on the macro scale.

But what problem does a theory of consciousness solve? If this theory is a solution, then what is the problem it is setting out to solve? That the first-person nature of consciousness is not amenable to objective scrutiny? And what about that is a problem? Why should we want it to be? — Wayfarer

Imagine being able to draw a diagram in a textbook that represents the chemistry of qualitative perception as incisively as photosynthesis and the Kreb's cycle, probably a hybrid of quantum-active biochemical pathways in entangled superposition with radiative fields such as the brain's. Not merely some chemicals involved, but the actual substance of what has traditionally been regarded as subjectivity.

Or a diagram of an ecosystem that includes spiritual aspects in addition to material ones. The concept of evolution would no longer be based primarily around survival of the fittest, but more on purpose-driven selection. "Selection pressure" would be transmogrified into a psychological dynamic that humans can deal with more cognitively, reasonably, accurately.

Or a diagram of the contemporary collective unconscious along with its evolutionary contribution to the development of organic lineages.

Modeling perception as an objective substance has huge possible benefits in our effort to comprehend nature and ourselves. We'll probably find that brain substance is in superposition with fields we haven't even given a technical term to at this stage. So much more of life becomes introductory knowledge and common ground when we can render its components mechanistically.

Bertrand Russell discussed something like it, I'm fairly sure of that based on what I've read, but perhaps he didn't coin the term. I'm actually glad you pointed out that possible error.

Is that like a square circle? — fishfry

Its a particularate monism.

Another woo-of-the-gaps is "a new paradigm"? — 180 Proof

Its not woo-of-the-gaps, once you grasp the superposition principle being considered an alternative seems impossible.



Wikipedia's panpsychism article might give you some leads.

The idea is by now more or less known. What changes is the emphasis of in what part of the process experience emerges, not so much the basic framework. — Manuel

Seems almost self-evident to me once you comprehend it that superposition or blended waves must be the core process involved in generating not only objective but subjective color along with the fundamental fragments of feeling.

there's no way to verify these views via experimentation — Manuel

Experiments will be found that determine the way quantum processes work in the brain. Its a matter of researching how electric fields superposition with specially adapted classes of molecule, producing extremely synthetic matter waves. The basic phenomena are probably capable of occurring independent of a fully functional brain, in tissue samples, perhaps lab grown. More advanced imaging technology can reveal the basic structure of wavelength motions.

More fundamental than what? — Olivier5

More essential than electromagnetic/nucleic matter by itself, I'm thinking dark matter, dark energy, and nonlocal forces.

Why should reality have a fundamental substrate? — Olivier5

More essential, not absolutely fundamental is a better way to put it.

I was thinking something a little more bizarre and speculative. Like, information informs space about the mass of an object or something unintelligible like that. — Cheshire

Not bad as a thought experiment, but ultimately better for computers than humans if given paradigmal primacy.

I selected information specifically referring to the spin of entangled particles. Is that inaccurate?

If information is lost during Hawking radiation, then it can exist apart from matter. — Cheshire

I'm skeptical of viewing information as fundamental, seems like a reification of mathematical concepts. Whenever we get a new model we get a new body of information because our minds are structured to assimilate the environment as such, but that means nil for the metaphysical or ontological primacy of any particular form of information or even information in general. It might be possible for an organism or being to perceive or conceive in a way that is not even analogizable to current human awareness, mathematical or otherwise, in which case thinking of the phenomenon as essentially informational could be erroneous.

As far as I know, Hawking radiation results from the separation of a matter/antimatter particle pair at the boundary of a black hole, so it is very much a radiation of matter.

The spin of entangled particles is information for contemporary humans.

Seems to me that information theory is fallacy, and we shouldn't elevate it to the status of dogma.

Do you think you can work in an extra dimension...It seems to travel through space faster than min. resistance can account for or faster than light. — Cheshire

I thought the large array of senses results in the wide variety of perceptual types. What purpose do the senses have if perception doesn't require senses? Why is it if I cover my eyes, not my form of superposition,, that I loose my sense of sight? — Harry Hindu

Those are the million dollar questions for research:

a. What is the fundamental substrate of reality that transcends electromagnetism, and how does it fit together with conventional matter?

b. Where in the senses, brain, and environment generally do quantum processes of perception reside? Perception is very synthetic, so distinguishing the locations of all the quantum biochemistry involved is no simple task. Obviously covering your eyes does not greatly hinder perception, there is still a lot going on in the mind, but it does have an effect. If my theory is accurate, experiencing must involve superpositions to the extent that it includes qualia aspects like stream of consciousness rather than only trillions of molecules. These superpositions will be located wherever conscious awareness is present.

Are ATP molecules considered major neurotransmitters?

I only know enough about this stuff to get myself in trouble if I talk too much. — Mww

lol, I know the feeling. ATP is adenosine triphosphate, the primary energy storage molecule in cells. ATP synthase is the enzyme in a mitochondria's inner membrane that bonds a phosphate to ADP (adenosine diphosphate), one of the steps in energy capture that occurs during cellular respiration. Its not a neuromolecule specifically, but very fundamental to biological function.

Youtube video claims scientists have determined that the phosphates in ATP molecules may be capable of superpositions lasting nearly a second.