|
|
|
|
Journal of Non-Locality and Remote Mental Interactions Vol.I Nr. 3
INDEX
10.
Quantum Mind 2003: Second Announcement and Call for Papers - S. Hameroff
10. Quantum Mind 2003: Second Announcement and Call for Papers From: Stuart Hameroff Received: November 4, 2002
Quantum Mind 2003: Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain
8.
2003 International Conference on Science and Consciousness 2003 International Conference on Science and Consciousness April 25 - 30, 2003 æ Albuquerque Hilton æ Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
7. Scientific Instrument Survey Each year over 15,000 scientists participate in the Industrial and Academic Laboratory survey. For the first time we are now conducting this survey on the internet. Your participation in this survey will help scientific instrument manufacturers make effective business decisions. These manufacturers rely on your input to direct their future marketing and product development efforts. To provide them with up-to-date accurate information, please take a few minutes to tell us about yourself and any purchasing plans you have for the next two years. Just click on the following link to reach the survey website. We know your time is valuable. In appreciation, we will enter your completed survey in a random prize drawing. Winners will be notified by phone during business hours. GRAND
PRIZE: $2,500 Cash To view a list of the 2001 winners click on the following link: http://www.labpulse.com/i&a/survey/us/winners.asp BONUS:
Free Feedback Report Click here to begin: http://www.labpulse.com/i&a/survey/us/index.asp Thanks for your support! Sincerely, 6.
RE: "Scientific Validation of Planetary Consciousnes"
5.
Reply to : "RE:
Quantum mechanics and free will: counter-arguments", Dimiter Chakalov, August 16, 2002
Dear Dimi, Thank you for your invitation to discuss about philosophy/science. I am not sure whether we will be able to discuss in terms of falsifiable scientific hypotheses (as you claim in some of your e-mails, private communication) because we talk about philosophy, which is not science, but at least I will try to move within clear terms rather than dark (not very well known) topics. I reply to your points: 1) Certainly, Leibniz and many other classical philosophers were important thinkers in the debate about freedom. I agree that there is much to discuss about the different solutions on the problem of freedom. However, in the short paper that I have presented, I had no space to discuss the multiple philosophical options. In the short paper that I have now presented, I have summarized some few main contents concerning to the central question on the freedom of will in relation to Quantum Mechanics, and these are mostly related to an interactive dualist view (somebody prefers to talk about emergentism, but this is just a "hidden dualism"). Leibniz defends a deterministic world in which the freedom is not the freedom of the will (as it is defined in my paper), but the hypothetical possibility to act in a different way in this deterministic world with a synchronized parallelism between mind and body (which is also a dualism but not interactive between mind and body). This solution has almost nothing to do with the solutions derived from quantum mechanics. As a matter of fact, Leibniz's concepts can be discussed in terms of Newtonian physics too; quantum physics indetermination has nothing to add to Leibniz's position. Of course, there are some interpretations of quantum mechanics which include parallelism, which is a kind of dualism different to interactive dualism (many worlds interpretation, or many minds interpretation) but the way the "real worlds" are selected has nothing to do with Leibniz's philosophy. 2) I did not know the reference by Pauli & Jung. Thank you for the reference; I will add it in future papers as well as some other references from your interesting web pages. A brief comment on Pauli & Jung position: since the mind should be capable of acting on itself, by selecting one from its many potential states in the future, we are again in a case of mind sending orders to the body which can be replied in the same terms that I said in the actual paper. In this case, mind and matter cannot be separated but this does not change the discussion with regard the freedom of the will and the discussion on who governs ("mind governs matter" or "matter governs mind"). 3) I agree again that my paper does not contain all the relevant references (which are thousands of papers and books). However, since Hipocrates in the ancient Greece who claimed that the matter in the brain is the origin of all our feelings and acts, there is nothing new in the neurology which can change our position. All neurological discoveries confirm this materialistic view. Some of them could have alternative/speculative explanations, but none of them can refute materialism. Nevertheless, many of them (such as the example of Libet's experiments) are totally against any non-materialistic view, and these are against any mentalist scenario. 4) There are many philosophical interpretations on Quantum Mechanics. And, as you say, the measurement problem is not solved. Precisely because of that, we must consider that nothing serious can be said based on the philosophical interpretations of Quantum Mechanics until we know exactly its meaning. I agree that the question is not solved, and I say it in the paper: "This cannot be checked, since we will never know whether the collapse was produced by the computer and the measuring apparatus before the observer checked the results or by the human mind when the observer checked the results (Schrödinger´s cat paradox), but at least we know that we can interpret quantum mechanics without the notion of an autonomous mind in the role of an observer." What I mean is: a) the interpretation of quantum mechanics is somewhat dark, so we cannot extract clear conclusions from it; b) quantum mechanics can be perfectly formulated without the concept of "mind". 5) Of course, we do not know many things in our Universe. I am astrophysicist and I know how many uncertainties we have in the cosmos. But, these astrophysical problems have nothing to do with the mind-body problem. Evolution theory (I mean life evolution) is best known than the dark matter or cosmological constant problem. And, according to my view and most of the biologists view (maybe we are wrong) there is no place for something like "mind emergence" in the evolution. This is the meaning of my "Absurd!" in the paper. I meant that there are some contradictions with our present scientific knowledges (in my opinion, maybe I am wrong). 6) I have not studied directly the human brain. I am not a neurologist. However, apart from Eccles, I have not read any book by a leading specialist who claimed something like "I believe that a hypothetical conductor governing the brain must exist". It is a belief, and I respect it, but I do not think that one should use the dark side of science to talk about a belief. Best regards, Martín López Corredoira 4.
Further Validation of the One Mind Model of Quantum Reality
According to the One Mind Model of quantum reality, Universal Mind is viewed as a single wave function that gives rise to individual branches or minds that remain entangled with Universal Mind and all other individual minds. We have previously reported experimental validation of a prediction of the One Mind Model using an EPR-type paradigm involving individual event-related potentials (ERPs) in the human brain (Quantum Mind Archives, 11/7/00). In the experimental paradigm employed here, ERPs are generated using the standard “oddball” paradigm. The ERP is elicited in the brain of the observer when a random “rare” or less-common stimulus is substituted for a common stimulus. The common stimulus is delivered as a tone through headphones to the observer, who is in a separate room from the computer module that generates the tone and records the brain response for 750 msec. Stimuli are delivered every 1.5 seconds, with rare tones being randomly substituted for of an average of one in four stimuli based on a random number generator in the computer. The brain response of the observer is measured by EEG and averaged over numerous trials to yield a pattern of electrical potentials reflecting the brain response of the individual observer to the rare tone. The rare tone is selectively attended to by the individual observer, and the number of rare tones is counted silently in trials averaging 24 rare tones each. Each wave form in the ERP reflects a cycle of electrical potential activity around the whole brain. Positive (P) potentials are traveling away from the vertex electrode. Negative (N) potentials are traveling towards the vertex electrode. All potentials were recorded at the vertex (Cz - A1). The oddball paradigm is designed to elicit the P300, or P3 wave form. In our paradigm, an observer in another room randomly observes the condition of each stimulus on the computer module one second before the tones are generated in the headphones of the observer who’s brain waves are being recorded. Approximately one half of the trials are observed based on the generation of odd or even random numbers, without the knowledge of the observer being recorded. On the basis of the One Mind Model, the two observers are entangled in the event of generation of the random tone. Since the first observer or brain determines the status of this event, it was predicted that there would be asymmetry in the brain’s response in the observed and unobserved conditions of the rare tone. This asymmetry was predicted to result in a difference in the ERP wave forms generated under the two conditions. It was predicted that this difference, derived by subtracting wave forms generated under the two conditions, would be statistically reproducible. Using the standard oddball paradigm, two sets of ERPs were generated in each of the two conditions in two separate series averaging four trials each. Electrical potential was measured and averaged for each set of trials in each of the two conditions, and the unobserved profiles were subtracted form the observed profiles to produce a difference potential profile. The difference potential profiles were then measured at intervals of ten msec. from zero to 750 msec. Data for the standard oddball paradigm yielded difference potentials that were highly correlated in the positive direction on single factor ANOVA, based on the correlation of amplitude of wave forms at ten msec. intervals. The wave forms of these difference potentials had a strong periodicity of about 90 msec. or 11 Htz. Another set of difference potentials was generated in which the decibel level of the rare tone was set at zero, yielding a random absent tone. These potentials were generated and analyzed in the same manner as the standard oddball potentials. Two sets of ERPs were generated in each of the two conditions in two separate trials averaging four trials each. The difference potentials of the two sets were highly correlated in the positive direction on single factor ANOVA.. The waveforms of the difference potentials had a strong periodicity of about 90 msec or 11 Hz. The data from the absence and rare tone and absence conditions were compared using single factor ANOVA. This was the most powerful statistic generated in the trials, and also minimized the autocorrelation factor between similar wave forms. Difference potentials under the absence and rare tone conditions were very highly correlated in the positive direction on single factor ANOVA (F = 15.2; p = 0.00015). Examination of the data indicates that the difference potentials are interference patterns with a periodicity that is emergent form the individual profiles in the observed and unobserved conditions. It is proposed that correlation of the difference potentials reflects EPR correlation of the brain electrical potentials in the observed and unobserved conditions. Further work is needed using ERPs in both EEG and fMRI paradigms.
3. On
Leslie Fieger's "Meta-rational thought" According
to Leslie Fieger (“Meta-rational thought”, Journal
of Non-Locality and Remote Mental Interactions, Vol. I, Nr. 2, 2002,),
the gift of rational thinking has brought the human species to the threshold of
a new era: a threshold of unimaginable potentiality to self-actuate or
self-destruct, a threshold that can be for us either a precipice or a launching
pad. In order for us to overcome this critical time, and to turn it into an
opportunity of growth rather than into a final defeat, we have to develop a new
vision of who we are: we must learn to become conscious, rather than
unconscious, creators. In order to become fully aware of our own nature and
creative potential, we must first understand the concept of consciousness. So
far, we have Fieger’s general assumptions, and as far as they are concerned, I
can agree with him to a certain extent. I too think that understanding our
nature and potentialities will help us to solve the problems created by rational
thinking. However, the merits rational thinking has had, and has, should not be
overlooked: rational thinking is part of our own nature. I too think that it is
necessary above all to investigate consciousness in order to become fully aware
of ourselves and of our creative potential: but I also think that this
investigation should be carried out in the wider context of the studies of the
human mind. What
I cannot accept is the panpsychistic idea of consciousness he put forwards later
in his text: “Every quark, every muon, every graviton, every electron, every
photon and every neuron is consciousness”. In his opinion, as far as I can
understand, every part of the entire cosmos is conscious and acting in harmony
with a common source – a universal consciousness. If
I refuse this idea is not on principle. Obviously, nothing can prevent us from
the possibility of conceiving things in different ways from the usual ones.
Everyone can propose new, unusual ways of seeing and considering things and
events. By doing so, it is possible to give rise to new attitudes and stances,
and to develop new analyses, research fields and theories. After all, one of the
features of the human mind is precisely that of being able to perceive and
categorize at will one and the same
thing in different, new ways (for instance, a pencil can also be seen either as
a “tool”, a “thing”, a “weapon”, or a “piece of wood”), and
different things in the same way (an “oak”, a “weeping willow” and a
“pine” are all “trees”). In my opinion, it is this very feature that
should be considered as the hallmark that distinguishes the human species from
the other known species: an hallmark that any study intended to investigate
human consciousness should take as the starting point for their analyses. On
the contrary, my refusal of Fieger’s conception of consciousness is due to its
lack of pragmatic utility for the scientific research. If everything is
consciousness, and if consciousness is everywhere, how is it possible to
distinguish and isolate it? How could we differentiate it from other phenomena,
such as for instance the non-conscious or the unconscious? Saying that
everything is consciousness is tantamount to admitting that consciousness cannot
be studied, analyzed, or recognized: being so pervasive, it cannot be compared
with anything, and therefore cannot even be described. To
be useful in any kind of investigation, any definition or concept should be
operable, that is having the quality, the characteristic of a tool that can be
used. Unfortunately, Fieger’s definition of consciousness does not seem to me
to be of any practical utility. When he says that consciousness is the primal
source from where everything originate, thus suggesting that it is an
unanalyzable and indecomposable prius,
he precludes any chance of conceiving consciousness as composed of more
elementary components, whether physical, biological, neuronal, social, or
whatever. Consequently, he precludes any chance of analyzing it in relation to
other levels of reality, and more in general of relating it to them. By so
doing, he excludes the possibility of studying not only the way consciousness
arises, but also the way it gives rise to other phenomena. I
repeat: on principle, I do not deny that consciousness, as anything else as
well, can be seen in different ways, for instance either as the result of some
process, as the process itself, or as something that gives rise to some process.
Neither do I reject the possibility of considering and studying consciousness as
a characteristic attributable to a subject - whether human, animal or divine -,
or as a subject in itself. What matters is, first, the applicability of the new
proposed idea or concept, second, the range of application, and third, the
results we achieve by applying it. Rather, I suspect the validity of those ideas
or concepts that, by definition, are considered as irreducible. I
suppose that Fieger could object that my argument is based on, and is the
outcome of, a pure utilitarian, pragmatic, rational way of thinking. As such, my
argument would be vitiated by the very same limits that his concept of
consciousness is supposed to overcome. This is only partially true. No doubt, my
argument is based on a rational ground, and as such, it can only take a certain
course and have certain characteristics. But, at the same time, I do not deny
the possibility of enlarging the scope of rational thinking and improving the
way it operates. It is precisely by becoming aware of the potentialities of our
mind that I hope to attain this target. When we realize that mental activities
gives us the possibility, at least to a certain extent, of overcoming the
determinism and restrictions the physical realm as well as others impose on us
(as we have seen before, we can, for example, change at will our way of
perceiving and categorizing things and events), we have found a way of
compensating for the lacks and rigidity of rational thinking. Fieger’s
concept of consciousness is certainly enthralling, but until it is further
developed and defined in operative terms, it is doomed to remain only a
suggestive but useless hypothesis.
2. RE: "Quantum mechanics and free will: counter-arguments"
Dear Dr. Lopez-Corredoira, 1. World Health Organization Certificate Dear World Tai Chi & Qigong Day Supporters, GREAT NEWS!! We just got our official certificate of appreciation from The United Nations World Health Organization. It is written to the World Tai Chi & Qigong Day Association, which is ALL OF US. So, if you'd like a copy of it emailed to you as a jpeg file for your use, display, media distribution, etc., reply to this with "Send UN Cert" in the subject line. Tai Chi & Qigong are expanding through media worldwide, we recently got an article in an Australian popular culture publication, and this month Fit, Men's Fittness, and Vogue Magazine are supposed to have Tai Chi or Qigong articles, and last week Time Magazine called Tai Chi the "Perfect exercise." ON INT'L ARTHRITIS DAY -- AND GETTING THE TAI CHI/QIGONG WORD OUT! I just got the following message from Dr. Paul Lam of Australia who's done some wonderful work with Tai Chi and arthritis. Since both Tai Chi and Qigong's gentle forms have proven beneficial for arthritis Dr. Lam has wisely suggested we should get involved with International Arthritis Day each year. You can contact them to find out how to get involved locally by holding Tai Chi or Qigong teach-ins, workshops, presentations in conjunction with their celebrations (or perhaps explore writing articles for their publications or local news) at: www.taichiforarthritis.com Thanks to all for your work to help the world discover these healing tools. Bill Douglas, World T'ai Chi & Qigong Day Founder INTERNATIONAL ARTHRITIS DAY - the 12th October. To commemorate this occasion, Arthritis foundation of Australia is organizing Tai Chi demonstration in the park throughout Australia. Many other arthritis foundations will include Tai Chi as part of their activities on the day. I would like to encourage any Tai Chi practitioners or students to join in by staging a tai chi demo in your local park. If you would like to participate please contact your local arthritis organizations or contact me. If you keep a journal and take some photos I will post event on the website so that we can these activities worldwide. For Sydney, this event will be held on the 11th October in First Fleet Park Circular Quay (near the Museum of Contemporary Art ) at 10 am - 12 noon. I have posted this info in my web sites: www.taichiforarthritis.com www.taichiproductions.com Dr. Paul Lam
|
|
|