The Brain and Mind discussion

Hello,
I am new to the group. I am a psychotherapist by trade but I have an interest in the application of quantum theory in understanding aspects of consciousness and existential phenomenon. Anyone else?! I studied it in my undergrad 3rd yr, but specialised in other areas, so I'm refreshing my memory at the moment. I strongly recommend al khalili's book as an introduction purely to the physics in QM. Does anyone else have any recommendations in this area?

I'm aware of Susan Blackmore's view, that using something as complex as QM to try to understand something as complex as human cosciousness isn't necessarily helpful (perhaps what you were loosely attempting to say by 'woo woo'!?), however I'm intending to do read the area thoroughly before I decide how much I agree with her.

I take it this is not your cup of tea! So you might not fancy reading Bohm. Wholeness and the Implicate Order

Make some recommendations to me in favour of the 'woo woo' approach,.please ;)

That wiki page is hilarious. Did you write it?

*sigh* Yeah, I'm not so interested in your quantum jesus, although I heard he IS still walking on water... in south America, or so I heard... well I read it on a wiki page.

I'm afraid yelling "it's bullshit!' doesn't say a great deal... or perhaps it sums up the extent of your interest and reading in the area succinctly. 5 points for being parsimonious!

So... anyway! As I recall quantum theory was considered in the context of global processing and the phenomenology of conscious experience... Really quite happy for anyone to recommend anti quantum reads, but hopefully something a little more... err.. thoughtful than quantum Jesus here.

Not that I haven't enjoyed it. seriously, have shared that wiki page with my friends. looking fwd to 3 weeks of in jokes about quantum Jesus and buddy Christ...

I think the woo woo page doesn't cover enough woo woo frankly. If you want to get into one about peoples attempts to fancifully

... (oops sorry) make sense of their conscious experience don't leave out ... Errr.... everything! You might want to check out some group debates about religion too. I heard that *someone* believes in God. That's not me, for the record. I just quite like Merleau Ponty.

Oh and I deliver psychotherapy to people with 'magical beliefs'. I don't do that by offering them another function-impairing set of beliefs to appraise everything by. I just yell 'it's bullshit!' at them. It's really the best way to debate the rationality of an idea or value. Really gets a cognitive shift.

Nina wrote: "I am new to the group. I am a psychotherapist by trade but I have an interest in the application of quantum theory in understanding aspects of consciousness and existential phenomenon. Anyone else?! I studied it in my undergrad 3rd yr, but specialised in other areas, so I'm refreshing my memory at the moment. I strongly recommend al khalili's book as an introduction purely to the physics in QM. Does anyone else have any recommendations in this area?"

Hi, Nina. I am a career neuroscientist, and would be happy to discuss your ideas with you. I am interested in your psychotherapy practice, the types of syndromes that you see in your patients and the sorts of approaches that you find helpful with them. Of course you cannot violate patient confidentiality, but I am interested in general statements that you can make.

I know little or nothing about the possible applications of quantum theory to aspects of consciousness, but I did a little looking and found several books that have dealt with this topic in one way or another. I have no opinion at this point on their value, but I am happy to learn about them.

I would like to hear more about the context of the discussion in al Khalili's book. From the book description it appears that he does discuss applications of quantum theory to consciousness. I don't have the book, but it does look interesting and has received good reviews. Can you tell me a bit more about what he says in this area?

While I agree that much of the popular application of quantum theory to psychology and consciousness can be considered woo, not all of it can. I believe Xox is doing a disservice to the scientists actually studying quantum applications to cognition and neuroscience by belligerently shutting down the discussion.

Nina: I don't know many books on the topic, and I agree at least that any popular science book would necessarily veer toward woo.... because true quantum theory is incredibly complex and difficult to digest, not really easy to put into popsci. That said, I can recommend to you some resources on actual research being done by cognitive scientists in this vein.

A Stanford University chapter on the topic:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-...

An overview on quantum applications to cognition, from a researcher at the University of Amsterdam:
http://www.quantum-cognition.de/theme...

Jerome Busemeyer at Indiana University: http://mypage.iu.edu/~jbusemey/quantu...

I warn you that most of the academic papers within the links above are extremely math-heavy (as you should expect). My point is that, YES there are woo applications of quantum theory. And I don't really agree even with some of the non-woo applications of it. But that is a whole other discussion, and it doesn't negate the fact that real scientists are doing real research on the topic. We shouldn't dismiss them on account of the existence of woo.

Chrissy wrote: "While I agree that much of the popular application of quantum theory to psychology and consciousness can be considered woo, not all of it can. I believe Xox is doing a disservice to the scientists ..."

Thank you very much, Chrissy, for your helpful response and for the links. I will spend some time in the next day or two going through the linked material with interest.

I would certainly agree with you that a discussion of a scientific topic is not advanced by belligerent bombast.

Since Nina has made it clear to the group that she is a working psychotherapist, I think it is safe to assume that she knows a good deal about psychology. Respectful discussion is expected of members in other groups, and I would recommend that we adhere to that standard here.

Thanks again, Chrissy, for your very informative response.

"Enough said. I would probably stick to the science, and know that the field of psychology is not real science. "

I just linked to a number of scientific applications of quantum theory to cognition. I'm curious what "real science" means to you if computational modelling, hypothesis testing, and experimentation don't make the cut?

Your militance against all things woo, while undoubtedly admirable under many circumstances, is not doing you any favours in a discussion about research. You don't have to agree with the research (and as I said, I disagree with much of it myself), but to dismiss an entire established scientific field because you disagree? That's truly unfortunate to see from someone so vocally against irrational beliefs.

Wow. Must agree that this is no place to be snide + snotty...

Woo link amusing, though :)

Well said, Diana.

If you're still interested in such topics, Check out the physicist Fred Alan Wolf. His theories about the interrelation of consciousness and quantum physics are indeed, rather intriguing. In the field of related metaphysics, he is of particular interest.

Chrissy wrote: "While I agree that much of the popular application of quantum theory to psychology and consciousness can be considered woo, not all of it can..."

Porthos and Busemeyer also have a Behavioral and Brain Sciences article in press, "Can Quantum Probability Provide a New Direction for Cognitive Modeling?", that gives a nice introduction and is light on the math. Notably, they say that they're agnostic about "the application of quantum physics to brain physiology." Instead they argue that quantum probability is an intuitive mathematical framework that address some issues more easily than classical Bayesian probability theory.

http://journals.cambridge.org/BBSJour...

Jim, I am interested in your views and studies of neuroscience. I am currently reading the book The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science and find it particularly fascinating. I work in the medical field, not psychology, per se, but I would like to understand psychology as applied to neuroscience. How does one with a history of a stroke learn to walk or move the affected limbs again? How does one who experiences 'phantom pain' learn to address this mysterious sensation? Is it not in the mind? Is this not in part psychology?

I am not a physicist by any means, and have not studied a whole lot of quantum mechanics, but in my limited understanding, I do see a relation to the scientifically proven facts of science and the current and ever growing theories of neurology and psychology

Thank you very much for the kind words, Heather! I am traveling today and will be on sporadically for the next week or so, but I will get back to you with some comments and suggestions soon.

I like the way you phrased your comments. And I have to say that I am not prepared to carry out a discussion in an environment where vicious troll attacks are tolerated, as they have been on this thread. But I will check in here soon, and see if we can actually discuss science.

That would be great, Jim. I sent you a friend request, I hope that is alright. I look forward to your comments and suggestions.

Robert wrote:
Porthos and Busemeyer also have a ..."

I think I read an earlier version of that paper, or one very much like it, last year. I'm still unconvinced by the need for quantum models, though I appreciate the idea that Von Neumann probability may not be enough to make sense of decision-making processes.

Heather wrote: "That would be great, Jim. I sent you a friend request, I hope that is alright. I look forward to your comments and suggestions."

Thanks for your invitation and patience, Heather. Happy to be your friend here, and I will have time for substantive comments soon.

Very briefly, there is indeed significant potential for functional recovery from stroke through adult cortical plasticity - I have collaborated with neurosurgeons who have done a lot of work on these phenomena, and some of my own work has a bearing on them.

And phantom limb pain has been studied by a number of labs in recent years, and one notable in this area is V.S. Ramachandran, whose book Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind would likely be of interest to you. I haven't read the book, but am familiar with the author's work and knew him slightly, years ago.

Chrissy wrote: "Robert wrote:
Porthos and Busemeyer also have a ..."

I think I read an earlier version of that paper, or one very much like it, last year. I'm still unconvinced by the need for quantum models, tho..."

@Chrissy and Robert, I am interested in your comments and will look at the paper more closely when I have a little more time.

At one time, people didn't believe in atoms,an earth revolving around the sun etc.
I like the idea of using a different approach to consciousness.
However, I think that the evolutionary aspect of human and all life forms development has dominated what we are, who we are and what we do.

other approaches may help in understanding what part of the brain does what, how brain chemistry affects people's behavior, I just don't think anything trumps the evolutionary dynamic

Xox wrote: "Hi. I'm very interested in the neuroscience side of the issue. I read about phantom arm or leg, probably from books by Pinker or Wiseman. A person mind could be tricked to see the lost limb and lea..."

That would be V.S. Ramachandran. Although decidedly interesting, I'm not sure what phantom limb syndrome has to do with either consciousness or quantum physics...

Right. I'm just wondering whether you shouldn't start a new thread about phantom limb syndrome instead of hijacking this thread, which is about applying quantum theory to consciousness.

The quantum bullshit is deep and getting deeper. Quantum mechanics affects the everyday world in one, very profound way: Pauli's Exclusion Principle, which dictates the way that electrons can pair up, underlies the whole of chemistry, and chemistry underlies the whole of biology. That's all. To explain the way nerves work, you need chemistry, not quantum mechanics.

Jim, thank u...yes this topic is important and relevant to the SCIENCE of Psychology for which it IS! Idiots that want to invade this topic for which they obviously have no clue, should go elsewhere and show their idiocy! Thank you to those supplying great references to this area...they are valued. I am just embarking on my doctorate in Psychology with an emphasis in Neuroscience.

One final thought...those of u who feel the need for cursing, go somewhere else so we may have an educated conversation on this topic. I welcome moderator delete posts that are vulgar!