Lecture: Quantum Mind and Social Science | Alexander Wendt

[@RikiB]

I tend to agree this is on the right track to a deeper understanding of many different things but at the end you say "its too elegant not to be true" and that immediately reminded me of string theory. Its always a good idea to be conscious of our bias...

[@ashinvihari9730]

How do you explain the subjective experience of Qualia with this.

[@randallboggs962]

Is it possible that scientific laws and properties, that seem to be intrinsic to the nature of the universe, are simply driven by a form of material consciousness? Can a consistently swinging pendulum, birthed by a push and killed by gravity, be considered this microscopic life? Perhaps our already well-understood classic laws of physics translate to microscopic matter in the same way quantum properties may apply to macroscopic matter. If the brain is a wet quantum computer, the key to understanding it lies in understanding quantum sciences.

[@randallboggs962]

Also if the brain IS a quantum computer smart enough to perceive consciousness, what would prevent any other quantum computer from eventually doing the same. God? I don’t know! Tell me!

[@hypersky2004]

Great stuff. Wendt never fails to disappoint.

[@hypersky2004]

Philipe Afonso Pedrosa He’s a leading scholar in international relations. I’ve followed his work for years.

[@marianakalil]

hahaha poor Wendt, but I totally agree.

[@AlexWent]

Very well done (from your quantum twin)

[@Maceta444]

How does this hypothesis of Humans as "walking wave functions" come even close to explaining the fact of free will?

[@feelsbadman1677]

Very very simply put, in saying that the power that choses a state in the quantom wave function is baiscly the same thing as decision making in our brains since our Brain is basicly that and the Wave function is not decided by anything else but it selfe. So we are that power.

[@FernandoFlores-oh9cy]

Its explanaition enough for peopple who've never studied quantum mechanics.

[@albinjohnsson2511]

”The fact” lol… Free will is not compatible with classical physics, which are deterministic. That is why most philosophers, ontologists, and scientists versed in the debate deny the existence of libertarian free will. Wendt’s ontology might salvage a limited version of it.

[@Maceta444]

@@albinjohnsson2511 Why the hell would you think classical physics is the way to explain human consciousness? That is absolutely silly.

[@sebastiaankampers6651]

So he starts the video that people have described the working of the brain like current technology and know he thinks the description of the brain like a quantumcomputer will be different? 😝

[@Speciesuniverse]

Wonderful!

[@jackpullen3820]

Consciousness is emergent from collapses of wave functions within microtubules in brain cells, in fact each brain cell is a brain within itself. A third of our brains cells contain 80,000 microtubules per cell and each of these microtubules consists of some 2,000 microtubulin where quantum superposition and collapse takes place. When you estimate computational power in quantum bits, it is more than the number of atoms in know universe for the entire brain. Thus our brains are making computations outside of known dimensions of time and space. See works and abstracts of Penrose & Hameroff

[@cloustonenergy]

The Wave Function is rather spiritual (energy) and when observed or obtains stimulation the field vibrations localize and the force field interacts with sensors of various things to include humans and their touch then seems to be material.

[@chrismain3968]

Every premise begins with "what if" and "maybe". None of these conclusions are meaningful without evidence.

[@CosmicMoth]

Chris Main you are correct in that “what if” and “maybe” begin every premise, but not just in this video. This is how all science works, it all starts with hypotheticals based on what we know already, we cant have true evidence until mainstream science allows us to Truely test these hypotheses. We probably know less than 1% of all science, so most things that are true we have no idea about, Wendt’s video here is just the beginning of this theory

[@chrismain3968]

@@CosmicMoth then he should collect some evidence before presenting. If I were to say, "Hey guys! Maybe gender is a wave function that we collapse by performing!" I would not have added anything worthwhile to the conversation. A hypothesis is useless without evidence.

[@CosmicMoth]

@@chrismain3968 like I said this is the first step, he must first get his hypothesis known. This is also not a theory that can obtain evidence very easily. Thought experiments and hypotheses do still definitely have their place in science without evidence. The point is he isn't presenting this as fact, we don't know how consciousness works, and we don't have the means (or we do but not the backing of mainstream science) yet to figure that out. What's your suggestion we just don't even try to understand how consciousness works? This video is to get the narrative of quantum consciousness out there, not to say it's definitely the correct theory.

[@chrismain3968]

No, I suggest that people with PhDs maintain their credibility by gathering evidence before reporting findings.

[@CosmicMoth]

@@chrismain3968 again, he is not reporting findings, that's where you fail to understand the situation. Before you can even begin to try to start doing research an essential step in the scientific process is to ask question based on observation made about the world, this step doesn't require any evidence as it is literally the step before gathering evidence

[@cem9753]

Wow!

[@FA-tq9ip]

Typical constructivists trying to deny any basis to human nature (blank slate) - interesting how he fails to discuss any aspect of neuroscience that relates to neurotransmitters. For example, preference reversal can be explained by changes in levels of brain chemistry like dopamine or oxytocin. Such reversals have been demonstrated before and after say an oxytocin nasal spray used in an experiment setting. There really is no need for quantum events to explain complex aspects of human behaviour like preference reversals. Even where quantum events have been shown to be involved in say a Robin's understanding of where it is geographically via the Earth's electromagnetic field this does not mean the Robin is a quantum being as a totality. What it means is a part of the variance of its behaviour is related to quantum level events - it does not mean the Robin is a coherent quantum wave... So even if there is some quantum aspect to the human mind it will likely be minor even if it has an effect (as Michio Kaku suggests). So if we want to explain human behaviour it seems that the variance of mind/brain needs biological understanding more than quantum events. It is such an extreme overgeneralization to say the human mind is built on a quantum wave. Also currently there is no evidence for Roger Penrose's conception of microtubules and quantum tunneling as the basis for consciousness etc.

[@freistiu]

some of the best neuroscientists (for ex. Prof. Peter Jedlicka) think that Wendts proposition might be true.

[@stef5791]

Show me a neuroscientist that can explain the time I took acid and dissolved into the universe! Can't do it? Checkmate materialists

[@FernandoFlores-oh9cy]

Thank you! And you've made obvios his lack of understanding of Neuroscience; but i seriously doubt this guy has ever oppened a Quantum Mechanics textbook.