[my comments in these brackets]
3/15 PL1 Mind to Brain
(see my note at end about mind being out of favor)
Stuart intro'd, thanked Jessica after John
1-Henry Stapp: "The Observer in Physics and Neuroscience"
Mind as stream of conscious thought [Said this was his defintion: clearly insufficient!]
Summation of neural, etc. [Yeah, like we know this is deterministic]
Copenhagen QT: active, participants [not subjective?]
Subjective and Frame of Reference: "Consciousness as given"
Von Neuman's Analyzer of Quantum [LOOK UP]
1-Stanley Klein: "Temporal anomalies involving causality and free will"
"Henry Stapp's eloquent (!) viewpoint" [means written]
Penrose's emphasis on Libet, uses his experiments as evidence of causal anomalies!
Hand [heart?] underlies subjective flow of time
Experiments say 250 ms delay, not 500
Delay consciousness to "put it together"
Burn_'s<?> anomalous EEG correlations
Are subjects reporting on thalmus or are we measuring it?
Feynman's amazing post hoc discovery -- the unique license plate
2-John Leach: "Dynamic spatial information and the subjective relativity of time perception."
Univ. of Findlay (OH)
The Clock in the Head Metaphor
Time perception is attending to the dynamic properties of the environment
Change is measure of time (from new Barbour book, 2000)
Theory of Time Perception is based on Cognitive Representations of dynamic spatial relationships [the simulator]
[Another problem with these experiments is that subjects were not tested for their ability to estimate time. The experiments need correlates on people who are better at time estimation.]
C1 "Quantum biology"
5-Christopher Davia: "Simplicity theory: Is the brain a catalyst and can enzyme catalysis shed light on consciousness?"
How many ways can things go wrong? [Human Error, Reason]
Scale invarience in biology = fractal
Soliton: Coherent traveling wave
Collapse functions as a catalyst (eg metabolism)
[Roger was asleep before, now paying attention; also Stuart]
Traveling wave vis life
[How about cosmology? Quantum?]
Brain as excitable media
Topology of media
*Invarience under transformation [Calley<?> & Sylvester]
Mountain as process
Invarience under transformation describe Unity of Process (its ontology)
Consciousness as ontological, i.e., we make it so [the simulator]
3/16 P4 "Transpersonal Implications of the Quantum Mind"
1-Alexander Wendt: "Quantum mind and social science"
Political Scientist; Social Theory of International Politics
But dissatisfied with Cartesian model; new book in progress--QM of Science
I Positivists: classical physics, materialism, man as machine, reduction, determinism, subject/object, game theory, rational choice theory, (behavior). No consciousness or meaning.
Interventionists: volition, creativity, scientists as participants,
(1) QM--panpsychologist ontology; dual-aspect monism
(2) People as walking wave functions
II QM Agents
Agency: reinstate choice (free will)
Beliefs: Superposition of contrary states [Arrow paradox]
Rational: After we act; per for at ivity<?>
Emotions: What's it like, ie feeling
System: Q person is holistic
Hegel re social holism esp slave/master [!]
Cooperation, confiict (war)
Supervenience on emergence [ß]
Externalists: Context, Society, Language, thought as f(language); holism; group mind è body
Question 1: Collective intentions in Q terms? (non-local causation?) Quantum Entanglement
Question 2: Need Q interpretation? Meaning (which IS collective)
III Society as Super-organism with Collective Consciousness (insect colonies)
David Sloan Wilson's new book on humans
Non-telepathic as different from individual consciousness
[Individual as medium of Social]
IV Complementarity (wave & particle; subject/object; rationlists/interpretationist)
Participatory knowledge (inside) re Ryle's Knowing Mind
Historical: Present change how we view the past (its meaning!)
Instabilty of the past
[E.g., who really won the war?]
Facts vs. Values in Social Science
* Applied Social Science
Science - Engineering - Invention
[TALK to him about Social Invention--READ his abstract first]
[See his link at www.quantum-mind.org]
3/17 PL 7 The "Near Death Experience"
1-Pim van Lommel: "About the continuity of consciousness"
NDE: lose fear of death
[not really end of us as process, just consciousness]
Cell death not equivalent to body death
[1969 was his first experience with NDE. But what was first reported NDE, specifically the "tunnel of light"?]
[So if there is no consciousness during death, then what is this report of NDE? I.e., it's not a memory of actual experience. For example, it could be a report generated by the restoration of consciousness--Boot Up!]
[First, he says NDE is always transformational and then says only 18% of those "brought back" experience NDE! No continuity factors either way!]
[What does it mean when people are reporting "unconsciousness," that is, when they are "dead"? If they are "dead" and there is no consciousness is it not also true there is no unconsciousness? No brain--and we assume mind--activity at all! That is, don't we presume that no EEG means not even unconsciousness?]
A good short-term memory is significant (for NDEs)
[Still not sure why we are calling NDE an "experience." For example, induced experiences are not like NDEs.]
[My experiment to test aspect of out of body portion of NDE. To verify this is "dead" person's experience ONLY and not experience possibly transmitted by others.]
[Still don't get the emphasis on first person reporting. Doesn't everybody know people are not the best witnesses?]
[This examination of NDE is trying to prove continuity of consciousness after life--when we still don't know how continuity of consciousness works during life!]
Brain does not have cognitive capacity for full experiential data [of course! The simulator]
But he then posits brain as receiver of information from Field (e.g. phase-space). But only consciousness?
DNA as Tuner and the 95% of "junk" is ID!
[J: I still believe that DNA carries all information throughout all species simultaneously!]
[J: The 5% or so that belongs to humans<?> is <something> the dial up and down the channels on a tuner.]
Something about Cardiac Arrest being related to persistent wave, i.e. Soliton!
[This talk should be followed not just by questions but by a panel discussion.]
PL 8 "Experimental Tests of Nonlocality in Brain Function"
1-Dick Bierman: "Does consciousness collapse the wave function?"
QP Bohm as deterministic [Marxist?]
Penrose's Objective Reduction through Q gravity
Radical Solution = f(Psyche)
3/18 PL 10 "The Orchestrated Objective Reduction ("Orch OR") Model of Consciousness"
1-Roger Penrose: "Testing the physical basis of the Orch-OR model of consciousness"
Measurement paradox: macro vs. large (cosmo) as f(GTR)
Schrodinger's Little Mermaid (new example<?> of paradox)
[Why is it that we assume, e.g., that which LOOKS like a deterministic state is not in fact probabilistic? That is, in some very real way, processes (or trajectory of) are always and only probabilistic.]
Thought Category <?>
Problem in <is?> Quantum In__ity<?> i.e., superposition
Quantum Gravity modifies both QM and GTR
Singularities seen as grossly<?> time-asymmetric e.g., 2nd Law!
Place for this (time-asymmetric) in QM
Information Loss in Hawking evaporation
Conflict = f(time)
[beam-splitter è bean-splitter]
*OR: Superposition is unstable, reducing to one location or another in a COMPUTABLE time scale.
Plank scale (time, length)
[his] New argument for experts is "positive frequency"
His "minimalist proposal" for a new formula <formulation?>
[Mirror changing to transparent via computer-control a new Maxwell's Demon?]
Spin Networks <due?> to Dirac
Smolin, etc. proposal of QG is very good but different
Bohm is not QG but consistent ontology
Suggestion for SQUID experiment (at Santa Barbara)
2-Stuart Hameroff: "Testing the biological basis of the Orch-OR model of consciousness"
Backward quantum propagation
Qubits lead<?> to cellular automata
Preconscious quantum superposition
Subconscious IS quantum information in superposition
T=25 ms (which is consistent with 40ms)
No arrow of time outside of consciousness
Entanglement via association
C 8 "Mathematical and physical approaches"
1-Brian Josephson: "Organised complexity and quantum mind."
No observer outside physics [physical world?]
Cottam's complex-system approach:
collapse=distributive information emerges locally
easily manipulable form facilitates computation necessary for survival
Time [his]: more explicit model for observer emerges (natural selectionèsurvival) out of chaotic background (forces for strong activity.
[string combines wave and particle]
This geometry as code for Turing (and Conway's Life) and Wolfram begins with ONE dimension.
[No time? E.g., two dimensions?]
(Referencing his paper at Tucson1)
The intelligence observes and adjusts backgroundèspace; content (in space)
[Bateson's coevoltuion of species and environment]
2-Chris King: "Chaos, quantum-transactions and consciousness: A biophysical model of the intentional mind."
Subjective and objective are complementary and interdependent
Subjective complements <?> uncertainty & in other things e.g., weather
Tao re what is randomness
Fractalization > tissues
Symmetry-breaking (FractalizationèTime's arrow)
The primal cell used chaos as multi-sense physical mode (sensitive dependence on boundary conditions
Led to space-time adaptation (=survival)
Synaptic from computation
Senses as Quantum Modalities
Transitions from Chaos (time as chaotic)
Feynman Absorber Theory (from book Experiments with Time)
Intentionality collapses the wave function
My Prior notes:
It seems no one any longer speaks of mind, only brain--and consciousness. No wonder consciousness seems to be a hard problem. It is purely a conceit of reason to say that only consciousness arises from the brain. As though there was no mind, of which consciousness is only a tiny part. But the conceit can't accept that consciousness is not necessarily the most important thing about us. It's like saying the most important part of an athlete is the hand, or the eye, or the smile.
Why do people talk as though consciousness was the only important thing for acquiring memory?
Miscellaneous Conference notes:
A number of people agreed that more emphasis needs to be on the practical, i.e., engineering as one of the multi-disciplines.
The best sex must be performed in a superposition.