Showing posts with label Quantum Cognition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quantum Cognition. Show all posts

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Paradigmatic Change as a Quantum Process

Kuhn likened the change in the phenomenal world to the Gestalt-switch that occurs when one sees the duck-rabbit diagram first as (representing) a duck then as (representing) a rabbit, although he himself acknowledged that he was not sure whether the Gestalt case was just an analogy or whether it illustrated some more general truth about the way the mind works that encompasses the scientific case too. 4.2 Perception, Observational Incommensurability, and World-Change

Does it seem somewhat clearer as we go through perception changes in life we see information and how this information becomes incorporated into our lives, as experience?

Abstract:

Processes undergoing quantum mechanics, exhibit quantum interference effects.In this case quantum probabilities result to be different from classical probabilities because they contain an additional main point that in fact is called the quantum interference term. We use ambiguous figures to analyse if during perception cognition of human subjects we have violation of the classical probability field and quantum interference. The experiments, conducted on a group of 256 subjects, evidence that we have such quantum effect. Therefore, mental states, during perception cognition of ambiguous figures, follow quantum mechanics.pg 2 - Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures(PDF)

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Its All a Wave



The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.

Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler's experiment then asks - at which point does the object decide?

Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. See:
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness


if and when......just for clarification.


Oddly enough, Shechtman has one complaint about the field that he originated: use of the word quasicrystal. "I do not like the term, since it implies that quasi-periodic crystals are not crystals, and according to the new International Union of Crystallographers definition, they are. But the term is widely used. I prefer to call them quasi-periodic materials. The term quasicrystal, in fact, does not appear in the article ranked eighth on our list of the ten most-cited Physical Review Letters.2011 Chemistry Nobel for . . . Quasicrystal Physics!
Is a quasi-crystal, just a diffraction pattern? If and when......we observe it?  So we can say that everything is a diffraction pattern/wave? As an observer, we collapse the wave function?

 We want to simplify it......all else is added to the simplicity to say.....you have this theory of everything to suggest......by comparison a virtual reality is a tool with which we collapse the wave function? See, it just become much more complicated? We are working on a wave function machine, not just a computer.

 Oh for sure, you want to get "a hold" of yourself. Then there is this causal connection to the beliefs that you form? You become much more responsible about the way in which you choose to do things, yes?


It is widely accepted that consciousness or, more generally, mental activity is in some way correlated to the behavior of the material brain. Since quantum theory is the most fundamental theory of matter that is currently available, it is a legitimate question to ask whether quantum theory can help us to understand consciousness. Several programmatic approaches answering this question affirmatively, proposed in recent decades, will be surveyed. It will be pointed out that they make different epistemological assumptions, refer to different neurophysiological levels of description, and use quantum theory in different ways. For each of the approaches discussed, problematic and promising features will be equally highlighted.Quantum Approaches to Consciousness -

The quantum mind or quantum consciousness[1] hypothesis proposes that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness. It is not a single theory, but a collection of hypotheses.


So, Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness and we are having problems with a classical interpretation of a quantum process in this thread? Help.

Quantum cognition is an emerging field which applies the mathematical formalism of quantum theory to model cognitive phenomena such as information processing by the human brain, decision making, human memory, concepts and conceptual reasoning, human judgment, and perception.[1][2] [3][4] The field clearly distinguishes itself from the quantum mind as it is not reliant on the hypothesis that there is something micro-physical quantum mechanical about the brain. Quantum cognition is based on the quantum-like paradigm[5][6] or generalized quantum paradigm [7] or quantum structure paradigm [8] that information processing by complex systems such as the brain, taking into account contextual dependence of information and probabilistic reasoning, can be mathematically described in the framework of quantum information and quantum probability theory.


Quantum cognition uses the mathematical formalism of quantum theory to inspire and formalize models of cognition that aim to be an advance over models based on traditional classical probability theory. The field focuses on modeling phenomena in cognitive science that have resisted traditional techniques or where traditional models seem to have reached a barrier (e.g., human memory [9] ), and modeling preferences in decision theory that seem paradoxical from a traditional rational point of view (e.g., preference reversals [10]). Since the use of a quantum-theoretic framework is for modeling purposes, the identification of quantum structures in cognitive phenomena does not presuppose the existence of microscopic quantum processes in the human brain.[11]


Maybe look at quantum erasure experiment first and draw your conclusion. Then, take in the experimental process being cited in the article link above.

. Setup of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment of Kim et al. Detector D0 is movable

 A delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, first performed by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih and Marlan O. Scully,[1] and reported in early 1999, is an elaboration on the quantum eraser experiment that incorporates concepts considered in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. The experiment was designed to investigate peculiar consequences of the well-known double slit experiment in quantum mechanics as well as the consequences of quantum entanglement.

Shall I be so bold then to announce that "everything," is a wave?

  The QL model developed in this article has a temporal basis, based on a (hypothetical) argument that cognitive processes are based on at least two time scales: a (very fine) subcognitive one and a (much coarser) cognitive one.  See: The quantum-like brain on the cognitive and subcognitive time scales


Who is observing? If everything is a wave, then "who" is observing? Look around you there is all these waves.......who is observing all these waves? Who, is observing this screen in front of you? Who is manipulating the components(waves) of this wave function box in order to make "waves" on your screen?
 When they observed it as to how it was measured? Again, should I be so bold to say it all is a wave?

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Yves Couder . Explains Wave/Particle Duality via Silicon Droplets [Through the Wormhole]



The modern double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena. This experiment was performed originally by Thomas Young in 1801 (well before quantum mechanics) simply to demonstrate the wave theory of light and is sometimes referred to as Young's experiment.[1] The experiment belongs to a general class of "double path" experiments, in which a wave is split into two separate waves that later combine into a single wave. Changes in the path lengths of both waves result in a phase shift, creating an interference pattern. Another version is the Mach–Zehnder interferometer, which splits the beam with a mirror.Double-slit experiment




To some researchers, the experiments suggest that quantum objects are as definite as droplets, and that they too are guided by pilot waves — in this case, fluid-like undulations in space and time. These arguments have injected new life into a deterministic (as opposed to probabilistic) theory of the microscopic world first proposed, and rejected, at the birth of quantum mechanics. See:
Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

***



The Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16:


In youtube example video given, I must say if you have ever seen Taylor and Hulse's binary system, I couldn't help but see some relation. Such rotation, would cause gravitational wave that seems to hold the droplet in position for examination......but the gravitational wave production, is an affect of this rotation so I am puzzled by this.


Natalie Wolchover is pretty good at her job, and I think drew attention to the idea of a Bohemian mechanics/Pilot wave theory. This, as an alteration of choice of quantum mechanics it became clear, how interpretation was pervasive at the time between these two groups, as a point of view. Not saying this is the case, but as I read I see the division between the scientists as to how an interpretation arose between them, some choose one way and others, another. And still they did not discard the world of the two groups but leaned specifically to one side over another.


As de Broglie explained that day to Bohr, Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg and two dozen other celebrated physicists, pilot-wave theory made all the same predictions as the probabilistic formulation of quantum mechanics (which wouldn’t be referred to as the “Copenhagen” interpretation until the 1950s), but without the ghostliness or mysterious collapse. -Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?
I am looking at the experiment itself as illustrated in my link to youtube video of respective scientists given the relation and analogy used. This is to see the aspect of their relation to something current in our understanding "as observation," and something much more to it as particle and wave together. Still trying to understand the analogy. In the experiment, what leads the way, the wave, or the particle/droplet? The "wave function" guides the particle/droplet, yes? Why of course, it is called pilot-wave theory.

Before the experiment begins then, you know the particles state "as a wave function," and given that this is already known, "the particle" rides the wave function, is exemplary of the nature of the perspective in the first place, as to what is already known. Hmmmm....sounds a little confusing to me as I was seeing the waves in the experiment, but given that such state of coalesce exists when experiment is done, raises questions for me about the shaker as a necessity?

 So cosmological you are looking to the past? You look up at the night sky and when were all these messages received in the classical sense but to be an observer of what happened a long time ago. You recognize the pathway as a wave function already before the experimenter of the double slit even begins. It has a trajectory path already given as the wave function is known with regard to A to B. These are not probabilities then, if recognized as potential of the wave function as already defining a pathway.

The pathway expressed as the pattern, had to already been established as a causative event in the evolution in the recognition of a collision course regarding any synchronized event located in the quantum world, as a wave function pattern. You are dealing with a Bohemian interpretation here.

***

 On the flip side, I see spintronics, as a wave function giving consideration to the y direction. It is a analogy that comes to mind when I think of the fluid. Whether right or not, I see an association.

The idea, as a wave function is seen in regard to this chain as an illustration of the complexity of the fluid surface https://youtu.be/pWQ3r-2Xjeo

To go further then,


Known as a major facet in the study of quantum hydrodynamics and macroscopic quantum phenomena, the superfluidity effect was discovered by Pyotr Kapitsa[1] and John F. Allen, and Don Misener[2] in 1937. It has since been described through phenomenological and microscopic theories. The formation of the superfluid is known to be related to the formation of a Bose–Einstein condensate. This is made obvious by the fact that superfluidity occurs in liquid helium-4 at far higher temperatures than it does in helium-3. Each atom of helium-4 is a boson particle, by virtue of its zero spin.
Bold and underline added for emphasis


A Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) is a state of matter of a dilute gas of bosons cooled to temperatures very close to absolute zero (that is, very near 0 K or −273.15 °C). Under such conditions, a large fraction of bosons occupy the lowest quantum state, at which point macroscopic quantum phenomena become apparent.
So fast forward to the idealistic perception of the analog by comparison in today's use against a backdrop of the theories and what do we see?


Nevertheless, they have proven useful in exploring a wide range of questions in fundamental physics, and the years since the initial discoveries by the JILA and MIT groups have seen an increase in experimental and theoretical activity. Examples include experiments that have demonstrated interference between condensates due to wave–particle duality,[25] the study of superfluidity and quantized vortices, the creation of bright matter wave solitons from Bose condensates confined to one dimension, and the slowing of light pulses to very low speeds using electromagnetically induced transparency.[26] Vortices in Bose–Einstein condensates are also currently the subject of analogue gravity research, studying the possibility of modeling black holes and their related phenomena in such environments in the laboratory. Experimenters have also realized "optical lattices", where the interference pattern from overlapping lasers provides a periodic potential. These have been used to explore the transition between a superfluid and a Mott insulator,[27] and may be useful in studying Bose–Einstein condensation in fewer than three dimensions, for example the Tonks–Girardeau gas. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate#Current_research

Tuesday, August 04, 2015

Quantum Cognition further explained?



Click the image to open in full size.
This paper reports a "delayed choice quantum eraser" experiment proposed by Scully and Drühl in 1982. The experimental results demonstrated the possibility of simultaneously observing both particle-like and wave-like behavior of a quantum via quantum entanglement. The which-path or both-path information of a quantum can be erased or marked by its entangled twin even after the registration of the quantum. -http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm#fig2
Bold added by me for emphasis


So you keep this diagram in mind. We then go to looking at this other linked video.

The understanding of the word "erasure," needs to be clarified in relation too, diagrams.

Yes, since sub-atomic particles are actually 'probability distributions' prior to being measured - all possible positions and states are part of their potential until the 'collapse' of the wave function. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation -comment section of video
So consider this for example. Space time arises from a 5d world. Unification of quantum gravity and light, allow us to have a 4 dimensional understanding of the classical world. If you assume that a 2d screen is a 5D world, then what happens behind the screen?


Similarly, the laws of gravity and light seem totally dissimilar. They obey different physical assumptions and different mathematics. Attempts to splice these two forces have always failed. However, if we add one more dimension, a fifth dimension, to the previous four dimensions of space and time, then equations governing light and gravity appear to merge together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Light, in fact, can be explained in the fifth dimension. In this way, we see the laws of light and gravity become simpler in five dimensions.Kaku's preface of Hyperspace, page ix para 3
Is it a materialistic view you encounter, or perhaps a point of view you establish by your choice of perceptible qualities that exist for you now?? Given there is a potential for meaning, then, one "same" meaning could not have been encountered by all, for it leaves room for probability encounters, that reveal different views of the world.....yet, some will get the probable meaning, as to what exactly I am saying.

Quantum Theory, is not a materialistic point of view.

***

 The path of least resistance from a the path of probable outcomes?

What would this look like if we were to say such traveling paths through the cosmos were defined by the paths of least resistance versus a probability paths. Clumping, or interference. If you understand what I am writing then please comment. I would like my thinking to be destroyed by your reason and your science, or you can help clear up misconceptions that are forming wrongly as a Bad idea.



In non-relativistic physics, the principle of least action – or, more accurately, the principle of stationary action – is a variational principle that, when applied to the action of a mechanical system, can be used to obtain the equations of motion for that system by stating a system follows the path where the average difference between the kinetic energy and potential energy is minimized or maximized over any time period. It is called stable if minimized. In relativity, a different average must be minimized or maximized. The principle can be used to derive Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian equations of motion. It was historically called "least" because its solution requires finding the path that has the least change from nearby paths.[1] Its classical mechanics and electromagnetic expressions are a consequence of quantum mechanics, but the stationary action method helped in the development of quantum mechanics.-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action

***


Maybe I should insert here how we might look at gravitational lensing and gravitation field influences as to how that lensing can distort or divert the photon's path.......just another way to look at the way gravitational influences affect the photon's path.....to see that the least resistance could as a affect not deviate speed of light in one of those tunnels as a way in which to determine satellite travel? Should there be a correction here?

My assumptions are generalizations, so I needed to look further to understand this relationship in regards to abstractions and how one can see in different ways. I wanted to see as far as I could in correspondence with the physics, to understand what quantum theory may mean if and when united with gravity as to a correspondence to dimensional references.
Today, however, we do have the opportunity not only to observe phenomena in four and higher dimensions, but we can also interact with them. The medium for such interaction is computer graphics. Computer graphic devices produce images on two-dimensional screens. Each point on the screen has two real numbers as coordinates, and the computer stores the locations of points and lists of pairs of points which are to be connected by line segments or more complicated curves. In this way a diagram of great complexity can be developed on the screen and saved for later viewing or further manipulation From Flatland to Hypergraphics: Interacting with Higher Dimensions -http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/ISR/ISR.html
The simulation argument for me needed to be understood better as well, so the 2d screen needed for me to be further explained as pixels are used to highlight the depth of our abstractions. Banchoff demonstrations in terms of the geometry as an abstraction in geometry for instance. Topology.


Similarly, the laws of gravity and light seem totally dissimilar. They obey different physical assumptions and different mathematics. Attempts to splice these two forces have always failed. However, if we add one more dimension, a fifth dimension, to the previous four dimensions of space and time, then equations governing light and gravity appear to merge together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Light, in fact, can be explained in the fifth dimension. In this way, we see the laws of light and gravity become simpler in five dimensions.Kaku's preface of Hyperspace, page ix para 3
There is then this being incompatible with each other( gravity and Quantum Theory) that has been talked about that Einstein was after in explaining things in terms of materialism, and to find, that Quantum theory is not a materialist explanation. So I find Einsteins attempts and recognition in later life as a step toward the need for such unification.

As an example, your screen you are working on is a 2d example of a 5d reality. Can we indeed create mathematical reality of higher abstractions? What does that mean anyway? Thomas Banchoff demonstrates geometrical imaging on 2d screens?


Where would these other universes be in relation to ours? Is there a way to envision it? Well, we live in three spatial dimensions: We move back and forth, up and down, left to right. And then there's time, so that's our four-dimensional universe. Another universe might be essentially right next to ours by going in another direction that's not one of those four. We might call it "another kind of sideways." See: Riddles of the Multiverse
-http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/johnson-multiverse.html
This screen has no depth other then the representations that we see are on this screen. You can call them pixels. What does a 5d world mean? In essence this is not about materialism anymore but a grasp for uniting space time with quantum theory? The 2d screen is derived from a 5d reality.

The understanding then sought for is that gravity and light are connected in a 5d world. Is a photon affected as it travels through a gravity field? What did Einstein mean as to a slide of light?



"Yet I exist in the hope that these memoirs, in some manner, I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

Friday, June 26, 2015

Neurobiological Affect of Quantum Processes

I am assuming the neurobiology affect of quantum processes already is an an example of the process itself, if it uses quantum mechanical processes as interference.


Abstract:
Processes undergoing quantum mechanics, exhibit quantum interference effects.In this case quantum probabilities result to be different from classical probabilities because they contain an additional main point that in fact is called the quantum interference term. We use ambiguous figures to analyse if during perception cognition of human subjects we have violation of the classical probability field and quantum interference. The experiments, conducted on a group of 256 subjects, evidence that we have such quantum effect. Therefore, mental states, during perception cognition of ambiguous figures, follow quantum mechanics.
pg 2 -Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures. -


The use of eeg machinery is already established as interferences patterns, hence, brain wave patterns?

However neuroscience finds it hard to identify the crucial link existing between empirical studies that are currently described in psychological terms and the data that arise instead described in neurophysiological terms. Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures


A question that may arise is, as to the definitive state of entanglement as an ambiguous figure. While interference affects as ambiguous perceptions, which arise as mental patterns as wave forms prior too? Thus, the collapse of the wave function, as an entanglement.


An indication arises from quantum mechanics. Quantum theory represents the most confirmed and celebrated theory of science. Started in 1927 by founder fathers as Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and Pauli, it has revolutionized our understanding of the physical reality in both scientific and epistemological fields. pg 5


The image recognition could be characterized by synchronization of firings in a neural network responsible for image recognition. Such a synchronization may be conceived as a stabilization to a fixed frequency of firings, and thus can be considered as a version of the collapse of the wave function. pg 8

Ambigous Perception



Ambiguous perception. A good example is bistable perception, which concerns alternating views of ambiguous figures, such as the Necker cube. Atmanspacher, Filk, and R€omer (2004) and Atmanspacher and Filk (2010) developed a detailed model describing a number of psychophysical features of bistable perception that have been experimentally demonstrated. In addition, Atmanspacher and Filk (2010, 2013) predicted that particular distinguished states in bistable perception may violate the temporal Bell inequalities—a litmus test for quantum behavior. Other research applying quantum theory to perception of ambiguous figures has been carried out by Conte et al. (2009).pg 9 -http://www.thedocc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/J18.-Wang-et-al-2013-quantum-cognition.pdf




The lines can change perspective and position.... as if the cube is protruding outward or inward(The orientation of the Necker cube can also be altered by shifting the observer's point of view. When seen from apparent above, one face tends to be seen closer; and in contrast, when seen from a subjective viewpoint that is below, a different face comes to the fore) as to describe it's geometric shape. Other examples here can be found(Rubin's vase -(These types of stimuli are both interesting and useful because they provide an excellent and intuitive demonstration of the figure–ground distinction the brain makes during visual perception.).


The Necker cube is used in epistemology (the study of knowledge) and provides a counter-attack against naïve realism. Naïve realism (also known as direct or common-sense realism) states that the way we perceive the world is the way the world actually is. The Necker cube seems to disprove this claim because we see one or the other of two cubes, but really, there is no cube there at all: only a two-dimensional drawing of twelve lines. We see something which is not really there, thus (allegedly) disproving naïve realism. This criticism of naïve realism supports representative realism. Necker cube -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necker_cube#Epistemology


Bold added to emphasize, direct and indirect realism- a dualism I believe occurs here, points toward the foundation, as Bohr looking at William James which lead to Heisenberg Uncertainty principal(Quantum Cognition and Bounded Rationality PG 27 to Pg 30)....and other assumptions.

There are no phenomenological experiments to suggest quantum cognition is real other then to see how the model works in relation too, questions and answers, or, to declare entanglement as a self evident state in my view.

The Necker cube is a paradigmatic example for bistable perception where pattern reversal obeys a particular probability distribution. Atmanspacher, Filk and Römer (2004) discussed this switching dynamics in terms of the quantum Zeno effect where “observation” (here attending to a percept) increases the dwell-time of an otherwise fast decaying unobserved state. Quantum Cognition, Bistable perception


Regarding consciousness then.

For example, subjects who stare continuously at a Necker cube usually report that they experience it "flipping" between two 3D configurations, even though the stimulus itself remains the same.[72] The objective is to understand the relationship between the conscious awareness of stimuli (as indicated by verbal report) and the effects the stimuli have on brain activity and behavior. In several paradigms, such as the technique of response priming,.[73] the behavior of subjects is clearly influenced by stimuli for which they report no awarenessConsciousness -


Awareness as irrationality shows then, that such information as to reaching our cognitive status as irrationality, can move to identify with a self evident position. This may help to show the process of inductive deductive relationship which leads to an over arching position as to being self evident. Aristotle, did not jettison Plato.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Contextualization and Ambigous Perception

The first, “contextuality,” is a way to understand interference effects found with inferences and decisions under conditions of uncertainty. The second, “quantum entanglement,” allows cognitive phenomena to be modelled in non-reductionist ways. Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision (PDF)


Yes contextualization matters, and it is not just the math, but avenues to understanding depth psychology. This distinction was pointed out twice on rationality with regard perception and Jung, as it was written by Blutner ( -http://www.blutner.de ) One might find some information on his personal interests that I presented as a paper written by him that might help.

I did not mention his interest to music for further research (Modelling tonal attraction: Tonal hierarchies, interval cycles, and quantum probabilities.) I mentioned the Necker Cube for a reason. If it is not an entangle state what does contextual mean? "Spread out" as if a parable? What is the essence of the parable as it is taken to mean to you becomes the entangled state. What did you get from it? Alternating back and forth the Necker Cube becomes an example of this process to say, how one can transfer back and forth between contextualize and the entanglement.
In the present literature, there are several approaches that seek for a general justification of quantum probabilities in the context of cognitive science. For example, Kitto (2008) considers very complex systems such as the growth and evolution of natural languages and other cultural systems and argues that the description of such systems cannot be separated from their context of interaction. She argues that quantum interaction formalisms provide a natural model of these systems “because a mechanism for dealing with such contextual dependency is inbuilt into the quantum formalism itself”. Hence, the question of why quantum interaction is necessary in modelling cognitive phenomena is answered by referring to its nature as a complex epistemic system. Quantum Cognition -

Bold and underline added by me for emphasis

See also videos at ICI Berlin by Harald Atmanspacher as listed. https://www.ici-berlin.org/videos/atmanspacher/part/1/
It is widely accepted that consciousness or, more generally, mental activity is in some way correlated to the behavior of the material brain. Since quantum theory is the most fundamental theory of matter that is currently available, it is a legitimate question to ask whether quantum theory can help us to understand consciousness. Several programmatic approaches answering this question affirmatively, proposed in recent decades, will be surveyed. It will be pointed out that they make different epistemological assumptions, refer to different neurophysiological levels of description, and use quantum theory in different ways. For each of the approaches discussed, problematic and promising features will be equally highlighted.Quantum Approaches to Consciousness -


As related earlier, if it's not in the brain where and how is quantum theory being used?

Tuesday, June 09, 2015

Before Making a descision

Thinking means evaluating information or ideas rationally and logically. Jung called this a rational function, meaning that it involves decision making or judging, rather than the simple intake of information. Feeling, like thinking, is a matter of evaluating information, this time by weighing one’s overall emotional response. Sensing means what it says: getting information by means of the senses. A sensing person is good at looking and listening and generally getting to know the world. Jung called this an irrational function, meaning that it involved perception rather than judgment of information. INtuiting is a kind of perception that works outside of the usual conscious processes. It is irrational or perceptual, like sensing, but comes from the complex integration of large amounts of information, rather than simple seeing or hearing. Jung said it was like seeing around corners.4 Two qubits for C.G. Jung’s theory of personality R. Blutner, E. Hochnadel / Cognitive Systems Research 11 (2010) 243–259 (pdf)

The contextualization of this example above in quote may help to see how Quantum Cognition is understood from my perspective. If you are aware of such a state as INtuiting, and if irrationality is to be discerned from such an examination, how is it possible to receive the understanding as, "judgement and decision, and even belief, before it is made. Before one becomes entangled? To withhold Judgement, as if to exist in such a state, means that information, is retained,  as if a parable, and while holding the information "in that state," aware of what can happen if you become entangled?

Fig. 1. Two pairs of opposite psychological functions: Thinking and Feeling [rational opposites], Sensation/iNtuition [irrational opposites]. Jung takes this two-dimensional representation in order to demonstrate the dependencies between the psychological functions. For example, Thinking and Feeling are opposites and conflict with each other (assuming one fixed attitude). However, their effect can be modified by using the irrational functions (Sensation and iNtuition, respectively). The numbers enumerate eight sectors in dependence of what are the two dominant functions (see Table 1 and the associated text for more explanations). See Paper above for information

One has to know in advance that such a decision entangles and that the understanding of the Necker cube in advance, gives an alternating relation of the parable and entanglement, as a choice before the entanglement happens.
***

In abstraction, information is liken too, the ability to gather information. You are not making a decision other then to present the equation as a source of information. This is currently be described as the quantifiable. It is a parable of sorts,  until,  the equation leads to a pure state. A self evident state. Then,  you are entangled.


So are people just incapable of thinking logically? Maybe. But in recent years a number of investigators have developed the view that those supposedly irrational choices merely reflect the fact that people’s brains are guided by the mathematical principles of quantum physics. Quantum math makes human irrationality more sensible

***


See Also:




Thursday, June 04, 2015

Holographic Universe, The Secret beyond Matter.

Now you must understand while this supposed question of the understanding behind a Platonist heaven has some place here in the conversation, I had been pushing forward.  I am of course interested in the science, so as to understand reality. So what follows has been on the books of metaphysics for sometime it seems. I want to clarify these thoughts and ideas in context of today's science. What is truth and what is not.



This video had been cut to form "another video." It is important to see how this was done. Go to the time of the original video on display of 20:15 and see where this continues in second video.

Perception, is an interesting subject.



Yet logically another non-dual option remains, namely virtualism, that a mind-independent, non-physical reality outputs the physical world by processing. In this admittedly radical view, the "ghostly" world of quantum theory is real and the physical world is like a screen image thrown up The Virtual Reality Conjecture -http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1110/1110.3307.pdf


On page 16 of VR conjecture I noticed a link at bottom of page that lead me to a video that I thought interesting. But, at the same time, the end, was quite shocking( See: The Real Absolute Being at 20:15)

The shift over to a universal permanence by name, had me wondering how many had jumped the gun, to have given this reality, a name? Advanced the issue of religion, as was entitled by name to see that it occupied, as if a place. A place in Plato's Heaven. So you choose who by name your (Absolute Real Being), Metaphysics has then lead us to this?

But honestly, you have to see the first part up to 20:15 and especially at 15:26 with regard to the perceived. Now, how guilty should I have been to see that I held some similar belief, that I may refer to the Platonist heaven as a function of the wave, now sees some Islamic fundamentalism that takes hold. No, it does not have to go by the name of Allah as it is spoke of by inference as that of the Holy Grail, in original video?

So while having been deflected as to follow a link on a page, the real issue here is what the first part of the video is speaking too. Any problems with this to help identify the Self?

Now of course how this video was used is important.  The issue of Quantum cognition is important to see some perspectives as they have been revealed  as metaphysical as well an understanding that we are in need of qualifying the process of sight, as issues of Quantum Theory?

***


Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision Much of our understanding of human thinking is based on probabilistic models. This innovative book by Jerome R. Busemeyer and Peter D. Bruza argues that, actually, the underlying mathematical structures from quantum theory provide a much better account of human thinking than traditional models. They introduce the foundations for modelling probabilistic-dynamic systems using two aspects of quantum theory. The first, “contextuality,” is a way to understand interference effects found with inferences and decisions under conditions of uncertainty. The second, “quantum entanglement,” allows cognitive phenomena to be modelled in non-reductionist ways. Employing these principles drawn from quantum theory allows us to view human cognition and decision in a totally new light. Introducing the basic principles in an easy-to-follow way, this book does not assume a physics background or a quantum brain and comes complete with a tutorial and fully worked-out applications in important areas of cognition and decision. Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision -
Also see here (Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision -  Bold and underlined added for emphasis by me.

In relation to the parable and what is distinct in the parable, was an example that I thought to bring forward as I understood it. This help me to see how quantum cognition is used(contextualized and entangled") and are looked at. Without a reductionist view, entangled takes on new meaning as to make a judgement or a decision. To make a distinction, means that in the parable you have decided, while interference, is a type of wave. The necker Cube is important here.

The Necker cube is used in epistemology (the study of knowledge) and provides a counter-attack against naïve realism. Naïve realism (also known as direct or common-sense realism) states that the way we perceive the world is the way the world actually is. The Necker cube seems to disprove this claim because we see one or the other of two cubes, but really, there is no cube there at all: only a two-dimensional drawing of twelve lines. We see something which is not really there, thus (allegedly) disproving naïve realism. This criticism of naïve realism supports representative realism. Necker cube -
Bold added to emphasize, direct and indirect realism. Again, I am not qualified to the extent to say parable is a good example, but, I think this will help greatly to look at as an example and the Necker cube, as given in the following quotes.

The Necker cube is a paradigmatic example for bistable perception where pattern reversal obeys a particular probability distribution. Atmanspacher, Filk and Römer (2004) discussed this switching dynamics in terms of the quantum Zeno effect where “observation” (here attending to a percept) increases the dwell-time of an otherwise fast decaying unobserved state. Quantum Cognition, Bistable perception -
I think by giving examples one might understand this better, and I wonder if there are others who understand, who can help describe the physics of, in the way it was here. Quantum theory is essential here then. Judgement and decisions, are entangled states.

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Quantum Cognition

Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, suspected that it could provide insights into human psychology. Now a new field called quantum cognition is exploring how quantum math can explain some seemingly irrational human behavior. See: Quantum math makes human irrationality more sensible


Quantum cognition community states that the activity of such neural networks can produce effects which are formally described as interference (of probabilities) and entanglement. In principle, the community does not try to create the concrete models of quantum (-like) representation of information in the brain
I would take note of ,"in the brain."

Saturday, May 30, 2015

Quantum Realism and Physical realism.


Experiments at RHIC and the LHC have complementary strengths in studying the quark-gluon plasma, a state of matter in which quarks come unbound. Image: Brookhaven National Laboratory. See also:
Experiments reveal new techniques in studying quark-gluon plasma

To an empiricist, reality means to make use of the sensory world and you have to be able to understand what rationality is to you. Rationality make uses of other ways in which to recognize that such pure states,  as they have been studied, help to see that such derivations do have a logical end.

In the form of the good,  there is no need to add anything else, but to wait and see how such pure states become an empiricists dream of reality. How does one divorce themselves of that other side of the reality of a quantum realism but to understand the physical realism is derived from that state? To understand a beautiful equation this understanding is necessary.

So what does it mean for an equation to be beautiful or elegant?

***

Monday, May 25, 2015

Consciousness as a Pure State


Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard

If consciousness is able to abstract, then consciousness is able to survive a heat death by going back to the beginning of the universe with those abstractions? Consciousness, is able to survive a heat death by mathematically abstracting, then ones consciousness can indeed reach a Pure State.



Since entropy gives information about the evolution of an isolated system with time, it is said to give us the direction of "time's arrow" . If snapshots of a system at two different times shows one state which is more disordered, then it could be implied that this state came later in time. For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state. -http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html


The concept of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics suggests that systems naturally progress from order to disorder. If so, how do biological systems develop and maintain such a high degree of order? Is this a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? -http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/bioentropy.html#c1

SeeChicken or the Egg Dilemma

***



Found a video for reference and posted for examination.Interesting comment at this moment?




So, what does Sir Roger Penrose say about consciousness?

So I may talk about a gap, but what is Stuart saying. So as a Platonist, we do not just see mathematics, but we see other things.

In a logical process, objective reductionism(ORCH) takes you to a certain point. Your aware of this point, and you can go back and look at the theory so as to suggest what consciousness is actually doing in that state. Penrose is actually telling us about the differences, regarding use of consciousness versus the computational view.

So with regard to this phenomenological association between two people, as Stuart and Sir Roger, they are melding "the abstract" to the biology. I asked if one could see a contradiction and I think if you look at what Stuart is saying here how does this fit with ideas about entropy?

So both of them were attack by philosophers, and by many others about their ideas.