Suggesting that there is a sub-level or substrate regime, so to speak, in which there a precursor in quantum indeterminacy does not deny the the first statement, but it does the latter two.
This explanation or summary may help us to understand what is being claimed in this thread.
A person intends to act and snaps their fingers.
Science tells us plainly that the fingers moved because the muscles contracted, which was caused by nerve signals, and chemical activity in the brain.
Now Iām weak as a scientist, so please forgive my elementary terminology.
My claim is that is that all it takes is for a single instance of a person causing this action for determinism to be false.
I get how complicated and messy the boundary is between the conscious and unconscious mind.
I am also certain that in limited cases I can act and make choices.
It also seemed to me that the neuro science @T_aquaticus is understanding would push the cause of the action to the unconscious mind and therefore to deeper and more underlying material structures until when.
By a precursor, do you mean a hidden variables model of QM? If so, I donāt see what that suggestion has to do with the second statement. Hidden variable interpretations of QM obey the same rules as any other interpretation, and QM indeterminacy still ceases to be relevant under physiological conditions.
May it be relevant when considering supernatural claims in the Bible and/or history?
Iām not understanding well what that means or what you mean by it I guess. It sounds like nothing at the quantum level can possibly have an effect on the physiological.
Iād be dumbfounded if the argument is that it canāt happen because it hasnāt been observed to happenā¦ and yet QM is said to be indeterminate.
While I didnāt say it, I did give credit to @T_aquaticus for stating the QM is not indeterminate because it doesnāt (typically) interact with the world.
I vaguely recall an article I read about how the continuity of consciousness might find an explanation in quantum theory.
If an event is supernatural, then by definition (itās built into the word āsupernaturalā) itās not normal natural behavior described by QM.
1 Like
Thatās the argument that was being made by @T_aquaticus: there are enough interactions going on in a cell its behavior can be described classically. I donāt know that thatās strictly true, since I think there can be edge cases where a quantum event (say a high energy cosmic ray) could have an appreciable effect on a neuron. But I doubt that this is an important contributor to brain states.
1 Like
He still begs the question when conscious determination (given all the mental interaction in life) is thought to be disproven by scientific observation
The same would be true (by terminology) for when QM interacts with the neurology in the brain or vice versa
Here is a thought experiment I came up with back in my early days of arguing about this:
If I imagine an exact copy of myself in a perfectly parallel universe, would these two copies of myself choose the same series of numbers?
In picturing this, I noticed something as I pictured these two people, I was no longer the one choosing the numbers.
All it takes in digital computing is one bit to throw off a checksum, if memory serves (and Iām not at all sure it does ; - ). (My memory, that is, not the computerās.)
1 Like
Can single event upsets be caused by a quantum event?
Yes, Single Event Upsets (SEUs) can be caused by a quantum event, specifically by high-energy cosmic rays or solar particles that can collide with a deviceās electronics and disrupt its normal functioning. This phenomenon is known as Single Event Effect (SEE), which refers to the unintended change in the state of a system caused by the passage of a single high-energy particle. This can lead to SEUs in microelectronics and cause errors in computing systems.
Thatās not it. To use an analogy, we can be confident that fusion of deuterium atoms is not occurring in our brains because there isnāt enough temperature and pressure for fusion to occur. The same for QM indeterminacy at the scale of neurobiology.
To use another example, look at the conditions that are needed for quantum computers. They have to have extremely cold temperatures and very precise conditions for a larger system to be influenced by quantum processes. These conditions donāt exist in the brain.
Computers are still susceptible to quantum events under not so rare conditionsā¦ and how many of these occurrences do you suppose happen in the brain and do not have a noticable effect? In a 24 hour period how many unaffective events do you estimate there are?
But computers donāt run off of quantum entanglement and other effects like those you are suggesting for the brain. Yes, ionizing radiation can physically alter stuff, but I donāt know of anyone who thinks consciousness is caused by ionizing radiation hitting the brain.
I donāt think human consciousness is caused by any single event. It is an emergent phenomenon that is located in the body. A ton of data supports this belief.
The only time I would question this is when someone wants to tell me I canāt make choices or act.
Solipsism is a real possibility, especially when people are beginning say that consciousness is an illusion.
Weather is an emergent phenomenon that is located on our planet. Does the Earth choose to rain?
It does appear that you are more focused on the conclusion than on the evidence.