How certain is materialism/physicalism as a description of ultimate reality?

Wow, I find the hard problem of consciousness fascinating as well. It's such a complex and mysterious aspect of our existence. I'm more inclined to lean towards the scientific approach, like exploring neurobiology, but I can see how some might be drawn to more faith-based beliefs or even quantum theories. It's all so intriguing to think about.

Actually you were correct earlier, in that the Penrose-Hammeroff theory is Deterministic. So, it is non-local and deterministic. He does describe his cyclic cosmology as deterministic, but I guess I forgot to connect the dots. All of his views are pretty odd, frankly.

quote:

---

Quantum mind - Wikipedia

​

Experiments
See also: Consciousness § States of consciousness
In 2022, neuroscientists reported experimental MRI results that so far appear to imply nuclear proton spins of bulk water in the brains of human participants were entangled, suggesting brain functions that operate non-classically which may support quantum mechanisms being involved in consciousness as the signal pattern declined when human participants fell asleep. However, the results are far from unambiguous and if such brain functions indeed exist and are involved in conscious cognition, the extent and nature of their involvement in consciousness remains unknown.[further explanation needed][100][101]

​

An experiment about wave function collapse led by Catalina Curceanu in 2022 suggests that quantum consciousness, as suggested by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, is highly implausible.[2]

​

Criticism

---

The non-local wave function collapse was falsified at the scale tested (smaller scales coul be tested, however)The neuroscience is a different story, but it has no implications for the wave function collapse issue and non locality evidence.Firtina, Nergis (20 October 2022). "Our brains could use quantum computation – here's how". interestingengineering.com. Retrieved 17 November 2022.
Kerskens, Christian Matthias; López Pérez, David (1 October 2022). "Experimental indications of non-classical brain functions". Journal of Physics Communications. 6 (10): 105001. arXiv:1806.07998. Bibcode:2022JPhCo...6j5001K. doi:10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be. ISSN 2399-6528.The neuroscience first:

quote:

---

Journal of Physics Communications
Inclusive Publishing Trusted Science, find out more.

​

Purpose-led Publishing, find out more.

​

PAPER • THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ISOPEN ACCESS
Experimental indications of non-classical brain functions
Christian Matthias Kerskens1 and David López Pérez2,1

​

Published 7 October 2022 • © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
Journal of Physics Communications, Volume 6, Number 10
Citation Christian Matthias Kerskens and David López Pérez 2022 J. Phys. Commun. 6 105001
DOI 10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be
Article and author information
Abstract
Recent proposals in quantum gravity have suggested that unknown systems can mediate entanglement between two known quantum systems, if the mediator itself is non-classical. This approach may be applicable to the brain, where speculations about quantum operations in consciousness and cognition have a long history. Proton spins of bulk water, which most likely interfere with any brain function, can act as the known quantum systems. If an unknown mediator exists, then NMR methods based on multiple quantum coherence (MQC) can act as an entanglement witness. However, there are doubts that today's NMR signals can contain quantum correlations in general, and specifically in the brain environment. Here, we used a witness protocol based on zero quantum coherence (ZQC) where we minimized the classical signals to circumvent the NMR detection limits for quantum correlation. For short repetitive periods, we found evoked signals in most parts of the brain, whereby the temporal appearance resembled heartbeat-evoked potentials (HEPs). We found that those signals had no correlates with any classical NMR contrast. Similar to HEPs, the evoked signal depended on conscious awareness. Consciousness-related or electrophysiological signals are unknown in NMR. Remarkably, these signals only appeared if the local properties of the magnetization were reduced. Our findings suggest that we may have witnessed entanglement mediated by consciousness-related brain functions. Those brain functions must then operate non-classically, which would mean that consciousness is non-classical.

​

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

---

Now the Quantum Mechanics wave function issue, which does not measure up to the theories claims.

quote:

---

Physics of Life Reviews
Volume 42, September 2022, Pages 8-14
Physics of Life Reviews
Review
At the crossroad of the search for spontaneous radiation and the Orch OR consciousness theory
Author links open overlay panelMaaneli Derakhshani a, Lajos Diósi b c, Matthias Laubenstein d, Kristian Piscicchia e f, Catalina Curceanu f

​

Highlights
•
In our article entitled “At the crossroad of the search for spontaneous radiation and the Orch OR consciousness theory”, we present for the first time a critical analysis of the Orch OR consciousness theory, at the crossroad with the newest experimental results coming from the search for spontaneous radiation predicted by (the simplest version of) gravity-related dynamical collapse models.

​

•
Our article is strongly connected to that published in 2014 by Stuart Hameroff and by Roger Penrose, entitled “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR ‘theory”, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 39-78.

​

•
Based on a novel intertwined theoretical and experimental approach, we examined one of the pillars of the Orch OR model, namely the gravity-related collapse model. In this context, we examined the Orch OR calculations using the gravity-related (called Diosi-Penrose, DP, for reasons we explain in the article) theory along with recent experimental constraints on the DP cutoff parameter (R0). We showed that, in this context, the Orch OR based on the DP theory is definitively ruled out for the case of atomic nuclei level of separation, without needing to consider the impact of environmental decoherence; we also showed that the case of partial separation requires the brain to maintain coherent superpositions of tubulin of such mass, duration, and size that vastly exceed any of the coherent superposition states that have been achieved with state-of-the-art optomechanics and macromolecular interference experiments. We conclude that none of the scenarios we discuss (with possible exception to the case of partial separation of tubulins) are plausible.

​

•
The implications of our findings, towards future developments of more realistic gravity-related collapse models, including dissipation and/or non-Markovianity, that may leave the door open for Orch Or theory, are also discussed.

​

•
Based on the strong connection with previous published papers on this topic, and on the importance of these studies for the Physics of Life, we kindly ask you to consider the publication of our original article in Physics of Life Reviews.

​

Abstract
In this paper we perform a critical analysis of the Orch OR consciousness theory at the crossroad with the newest experimental results coming from the search for spontaneous radiation predicted by the simplest version of gravity-related dynamical collapse models. We conclude that Orch OR theory, when based on the simplest version of gravity-related dynamical collapse, is highly implausible in all the cases analyzed. We discuss the implications of our findings, the limitations, and future plans toward the development of more realistic gravity-related collapse models.

​

Introduction
Since the 1990s, Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose (hereafter, HP) have sought to link microtubular neurobiological processes with quantum wave function collapse, as part of a comprehensive theory of how the (arguably) non-computable phenomenon of consciousness emerges from brain function [1], [2]. They call their theory Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) [2]. Crucial to Orch OR is the hypothesis, due to Roger Penrose, that wave function collapse is related to gravity in that quantum superpositions of matter degrees of freedom are accompanied by quantum superpositions of the curved spacetime geometries produced by the matter degrees of freedom, where the latter are unstable resulting in a random collapse of the total wave function in an average time τ given by the expression
[1], [3], [4], [5], [6], [2]. Here ħ is the reduced Planck's constant and
is the gravitational self-energy of the difference between two (stationary) mass distributions of the superposition.

​

Another crucial (and highly controversial [7], [8], [9], [10], [2]) assumption needed by HP for the Orch OR mechanism to occur in brain microtubules is that quantum superpositions of gravitational self-energy
avoid environmental decoherence long enough to reach time τ [2]. Relatedly, HP argue that in order for Orch OR to be operative in the brain there would need to be coherent superpositions of sufficient amounts of microtubule material such that
, undisturbed by environmental entanglement, results in reduction on a timescale of the general order for a conscious experience [2]. For an ordinary type of experience, they note that this might be about
, which concurs with neural correlates of consciousness, such as particular frequencies of EEG, visual gestalts, and reported conscious moments. Thus they take τ to correspond to the duration of, or possibly the interval between conscious moments. The assumption of coherent superpositions is important for HP as their hypothesis is that a moment of conscious experience emerges from (or is identical to) a collapse event that destroys coherence in a previously unitarily evolving coherent quantum state of tubulins in neurons. They also suggest that “coherent quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity” [2]. In other words, in Orch OR, coherent quantum processes are essential for regulating brain function while moments of conscious experience arise via gravity-related OR of coherently superposed states of tubulin.

---

https://www.sciencedirect.com/...e/abs/pii/S1571064522000197I only quoted a tiny amount of both journalsSo the Neuroscience does challenge conventional theories about consciousness. Per first journal.But The Penrose Wave Function Collapse and non locality were completely not backed up by the results. Per second journal

The gravitational collapse of the wave function is not quite dead.

quote:

---

In 2020, a team in Italy, including Donadi, Bassi and Curceanu, along with Diósi in Hungary, used a germanium detector of this sort to test the Diósi-Penrose model. The detectors, created for a neutrino experiment called IGEX, are shielded from radiation by virtue of their location underneath Gran Sasso, a mountain in the Apennine range of Italy.

​

After carefully subtracting the remaining background signal — mostly natural radioactivity from the rock — the physicists saw no emission at a sensitivity level that ruled out the simplest form of the Diósi-Penrose model. They also placed strong bounds on the parameters within which various CSL models might still work. The original GRW model lies just within this tight window: It survived by a whisker.

​

In a paper published this August, the 2020 result was confirmed and strengthened by an experiment called the Majorana Demonstrator, which was established primarily to search for hypothetical particles called Majorana neutrinos (which have the curious property of being their own antiparticles). The experiment is housed in the Sanford Underground Research Facility, which lies almost 5,000 feet underground in a former gold mine in South Dakota. It has a larger array of high-purity germanium detectors than IGEX, and they can detect X-rays down to low energies. “Our limit is much more stringent compared to the previous work,” said Kim, a member of the team.

​

A Messy End

​

Although physical-collapse models are badly ailing, they’re not quite dead. “The various models make very different assumptions about the nature and the properties of the collapse,” said Kim. Experimental tests have now excluded most plausible possibilities for these values, but there’s still a small island of hope.

​

....
Falsification is hard work, and rarely reaches a tidy end point. Even now, according to Curceanu, Roger Penrose — who was awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on general relativity — is working on a version of the Diósi-Penrose model in which there’s no spontaneous radiation at all.

​

Quanta Magazine

---

This has implications for the alternative wave function interpretations.Such as evidence for the Many Worlds TheoryPenrose uses gravitational collapse as a way around current evidence:

quote:

---

Rejection
Some scientists consider MWI unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that no information can be passed between them.[78][79]

​

Victor J. Stenger remarked that Murray Gell-Mann's published work explicitly rejects the existence of simultaneous parallel universes.[80] Collaborating with James Hartle, Gell-Mann worked toward the development a more "palatable" post-Everett quantum mechanics. Stenger thought it fair to say that most physicists find MWI too extreme, though it "has merit in finding a place for the observer inside the system being analyzed and doing away with the troublesome notion of wave function collapse".[e]

​

Roger Penrose argues that the idea is flawed because it is based on an oversimplified version of quantum mechanics that does not account for gravity. In his view, applying conventional quantum mechanics to the universe implies the MWI, but the lack of a successful theory of quantum gravity negates the claimed universality of conventional quantum mechanics.[27] According to Penrose, "the rules must change when gravity is involved". He further asserts that gravity helps anchor reality and "blurry" events have only one allowable outcome: "electrons, atoms, molecules, etc., are so minute that they require almost no amount of energy to maintain their gravity, and therefore their overlapping states. They can stay in that state forever, as described in standard quantum theory". On the other hand, "in the case of large objects, the duplicate states disappear in an instant due to the fact that these objects create a large gravitational field".[81][82]

​

Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia

---

But String Theory does not show this claim of Penrose. He rejects that too. Current Quantum Mechanical Theories might, indeed, be incomplete though.

That is materialism, correct?

Are you asking about the narrow issue,here?Or the broader Quantum Mind issue that you seemed to be raising?(Which includes the hard problem of consciousness)(Again, this has NOTHING to do with Gurus, so please leave them out of this discussion)

Wow?

That's a bold request. Can you please clarify what you mean by "EvC supernaturally obsessed"? Are you referring to individuals who have an intense fixation on supernatural elements, such as ghosts, demons, or other paranormal phenomena? And what kind of obsessions do you want them to air here?

Until, I indicate otherwise, all quotes come from:Quantum mind - Wikipedia

quote:

---

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Quantum cognition.
The quantum mind or quantum consciousness is a group of hypotheses proposing that local physical laws and interactions from classical mechanics or connections between neurons alone cannot explain consciousness,[1] positing instead that quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition that cause nonlocalized quantum effects, interacting in smaller features of the brain than cells, may play an important part in the brain's function and could explain critical aspects of consciousness. These scientific hypotheses are as yet unvalidated, and they can overlap with quantum mysticism. Empirical evidence is against the notion of quantum consciousness, experiments do not support hypotheses of quantum mind.[2]

---

The HISTORY an APPROACHES covers the history of physicists holding various viewpoints.

quote:

---

David Chalmers argues against quantum consciousness. He instead discusses how quantum mechanics may relate to dualistic consciousness.[7] Chalmers is skeptical that any new physics can resolve the hard problem of consciousness.[8][9][10] He argues that quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same weakness as more conventional theories. Just as he argues that there is no particular reason why particular macroscopic physical features in the brain should give rise to consciousness, he also thinks that there is no particular reason why a particular quantum feature, such as the EM field in the brain, should give rise to consciousness either.[10]

​

---

Then Mind-Body dualism article:

quote:

---

Mind–body dualism - Wikipedia

​

The zombie argument
Main article: Philosophical zombie
See also: Chinese room and Knowledge argument
The zombie argument is based on a thought experiment proposed by David Chalmers over the issue of qualia or the hard problem of consciousness. The basic idea is that one can imagine, and, therefore, conceive the existence of, an apparently functioning human being/body without any conscious states being associated with it.

​

Chalmers' argument is that it seems plausible that such a being could exist because all that is needed is that all and only the things that the physical sciences describe and observe about a human being must be true of the zombie. None of the concepts involved in these sciences make reference to consciousness or other mental phenomena, and any physical entity can be described scientifically via physics whether it is conscious or not. The mere logical possibility of a p-zombie demonstrates that consciousness is a natural phenomenon beyond the current unsatisfactory explanations. Chalmers states that one probably could not build a living p-zombie because living things seem to require a level of consciousness. However (unconscious?) robots built to simulate humans may become the first real p-zombies. Hence Chalmers half-joking calls for the need to build a "consciousness meter" to ascertain if any given entity, human or robot, is conscious or not.[37][38]

​

Others such as Dennett have argued that the notion of a philosophical zombie is an incoherent,[39] or unlikely,[40] concept. In particular, nothing proves that an entity (e.g., a computer or robot) which would perfectly mimic human beings, and especially perfectly mimic expressions of feelings (like joy, fear, anger, ...), would not indeed experience them, thus having similar states of consciousness to what a real human would have. It is argued that under physicalism, one must either believe that anyone including oneself might be a zombie, or that no one can be a zombie—following from the assertion that one's own conviction about being (or not being) a zombie is a product of the physical world and is therefore no different from anyone else's.

---

Now the HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS, stripped of the Quantum Theories

quote:

---

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia

​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Hard problem (disambiguation).
In philosophy of mind, the hard problem of consciousness is to explain why and how humans and other organisms have qualia, phenomenal consciousness, or subjective experiences.[1][2]

​

....

​

Proponents of the hard problem argue that it is categorically different from the easy problems since no mechanistic or behavioral explanation could explain the character of an experience, not even in principle. Even after all the relevant functional facts are explicated, they argue, there will still remain a further question: "why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience?"[1] To bolster their case, proponents of the hard problem frequently turn to various philosophical thought experiments, involving philosophical zombies (which, they claim, are conceivable) or inverted qualia, or the claimed ineffability of colour experiences, or the claimed unknowability of foreign states of consciousness, such as the experience of being a bat.

​

The terms "hard problem" and "easy problems" were coined by the philosopher David Chalmers in a 1994 talk given at The Science of Consciousness conference held in Tucson, Arizona.[5] The following year, the main talking points of Chalmers' talk were then published in The Journal of Consciousness Studies.[3] The publication gained significant attention from consciousness researchers and became the subject of a special volume of the journal,[6][7] which was later published into a book.[8] In 1996, Chalmers published The Conscious Mind, a book-length treatment of the hard problem, in which he elaborated on his core arguments and responded to counterarguments. His use of the word easy is "tongue-in-cheek".[9] As the cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker puts it, they are about as easy as going to Mars or curing cancer. "That is, scientists more or less know what to look for, and with enough brainpower and funding, they would probably crack it in this century."[10]

​

The existence of the hard problem is disputed.
...
According to a 2020 PhilPapers survey, a majority (62.42%) of the philosophers surveyed said they believed that the hard problem is a genuine problem, while 29.72% said that it does not exist.[26]

​

....

​

Implications for physicalism
See also: Physicalism
Chalmers's idea contradicts physicalism (sometimes labelled materialism). This is the view that everything that exists is a physical or material thing, so everything can be reduced to microphysical things (such as subatomic particles and the interactions between them). For example, a desk is a physical thing because it is nothing more than a complex arrangement of a large number of subatomic particles interacting in a certain way. According to physicalism, everything, including consciousness, can be explained by appeal to its microphysical constituents. Chalmers's hard problem presents a counterexample to this view, since it suggests that consciousness cannot be reductively explained by appealing to its microphysical constituents. Thus, if the hard problem is a real problem then physicalism must be false, and if physicalism is true then the hard problem must not be a real problem.[citation needed]

​

Though Chalmers rejects physicalism, he is still a naturalist.[27][importance?]

​

Historical precedents

​

The hard problem of consciousness has scholarly antecedents considerably earlier than Chalmers. Chalmers himself notes that "a number of thinkers in the recent and distant past" have "recognised the particular difficulties of explaining consciousness."[32]

---

Wiki article on book

quote:

---

The conclusion of all these arguments is the same: consciousness is irreducible to physical facts alone.[13]

​

Against materialism
The only things that are irreducible to lower level facts are fundamental laws of nature (e.g., space and time). Since consciousness is irreducible, Chalmers believes that it, too, is fundamental.[note 6][14]

​

Further information: property dualism
Chalmers accepts that people may be reluctant to accept this conclusion, but notes that people were initially reluctant to accept the fundamental nature of electromagnetism as well. He also accepts that his conclusion sound jarring, but notes that the brute nature of consciousness poses no more a mystery than the brute nature of electromagnetism, gravity, or any other fundamental law.

​

The Conscious Mind - Wikipedia

---

Materialism is up for debate, perhaps?The issues surrounding consciousness leave a lot of questions touching on materialism.

Do the results of a double slit experiment leave a lot of questions touching on materialism?Why would quantum effects happening in the brain be any different than all of the quantum effects happening in the material world?

I did not coin the phrase. Perhaps I need to edit my heading.

quote:

---

Do the results of a double slit experiment leave a lot of questions touching on materialism?

---

The Philosopher who coined the term Hard Problem Of Consciousness, does not make Quantum Mechanical arguments.Penrose made an attempt at the problem, using QM.The former said materialism is challenged, but he feels there is an unknown force relevant to consciousness.The latter, Penrose, did not say anything about materialism, I think.

quote:

---

Why would quantum effects happening in the brain be any different than all of the quantum effects happening in the material world?

---

Penrose (and apparently you) feels there are separate physical laws we follow:One is Quantum MechanicsTwo is Classical PhysicsHe feels the wave function collapses, at a certain size. Albeit, with a non-Copenhagen, Non-Observer collapse postulate. He feels the Quantum object becomes a classical object at a certain size difference.You and he have never told us what the size is. You also dont tell us how many particles - and which - it takes to form a single Quantum event object which gets observed (per Copenhagen) or weight-loaded (per physical collapse theories). Is it trillions of atoms forming a single object which "collapses"? Quadrillions of quarks conglomerated in a single object?It is a fact that quantum physical laws govern every single particle, even the conglomerations that form large objects.Just because Universe of quantum particles are incredibly difficult and time consuming to observe, does not mean they do not exist.THE ISSUE IS NOT QUANTUM VERSES CLASSICAL OBJECTSWE ARE ALL QUANTUM PARTICLES - every last particle in our boy.Every atom.Penrose had a point about the function of the brain. He felt the brain did things his dick did not.I have am not responsible for why he feels the wave function collapses and that you and he have the differing physical views on macroscopic size objects verses micro "quantum" objects.To me, the issue might be a body function issue.(I do not share his view. You have more in common with his physical views than me)WE ALL ARE 100% MADE OF QUANTUM PARTICLES that is a mainstream-science factAGAINOUR ENTIRE MACRO-BODY IS PURE QUANTUM

From the Forum Guidelines:

6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

I'm not sure if I understand your request correctly, but it seems like you want people who are supernaturally obsessed to share their obsessions here. If that's the case, feel free to share your thoughts and interests related to supernatural topics!

The assumptions in the Hard Problem of Consciousness (HPoC) are a bit questionable. It all seems to hinge on the claim that consciousness can't be explained by reduction to brain chemistry. It's just kind of asserted to be true, which I guess could be considered metaphysical. However, axioms within metaphysics are usually something that can't be tested, and the question of the link between consciousness and brain function seems to be testable, ptoentially or otherwise. I can't speak for Penrose, but I don't believe that. All classical physics are an emergent property of the underlying quantum physics. I agree. That is why I am a bit puzzle why you seem to be referring to Penrose's ideas as being non-materialistic. Have I misunderstood your position?

He is very clearly testing his theory scientifically.His theory happened to involve Quantum Mechanics and the theory of the Gravitational Wave Function Collapse.Wave Function Collapse is a majority view, but not at all proven.Physical Collapse is a controversial (minority view) take on an already controversial majority view.Penrose is not the only one who has contrary views on consciousness. Not every contrary view concerns materialism. The Hard Problem of Consciousness will be the example of a philosophical theory that does have believers who feel physical laws are challenged in a way that might even cross the line that materialism draws in the sand.