Re: MAPS: Digest: N2O and Brain Cells

[Alex Gamma <gamma@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To Mark and the forum,

i'd like to answer to Mark's points concerning the quantum hypothesis of
consciousness. Although not directly related to the forum's main concerns,
a discussion of this issue may shed some light on the general mechanisms of
the scientific modus operandi.

>Someone took issue with my "baseless speculation."  For more of the basis I 
>refer you to http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc
>
>Of course, this is "theory."  To my knowledge, no one has the undisputed 
>facts.  However, any explanation has to explain certain phenomena of 
>consciousness and also some empirical data.  By definition, there is no
place 
>for consciousness in classical science.  

I don't know what leads you to say that. The past decades have brought
together a variety of disciplines (such as neurobiology, psychology,
computer science, mathematics, etc), all from within "classical" science,
in the study of consciousness. For example, what is called "cognitive
science" is a research program specifically targeted at understanding the
mind, including consciousness. There's even talk of a new-born "science of
consciousness", and the  biennial Tucson conference attests to the
tremendous interest the study of consciousness has attracted within
classical sciences (and other fields).

All these endeavors aim at finding the proper place of consciousness within
science, but there is a general consensus that it *has* its place
somewhere, i.e. that it can be understood in terms of a naturalistic
science (be it "classical" or quantum physical).

>No one will do the experimental science needed.

Again, I don't see any basis for such an assertion. 

>  I have outlined protocols, 
>one of which is on the site listed above.  I don't have much interest in 
>atheoretical science.

I certainly did not say that science is, or has to be, atheoretical.
Science will always work with theories and models.

>  I am a psychopharmacologist and am interested in the 
>basic phenomena of the mind.  What I am reading is just scratching the 
>surface.  I had hoped to perhaps initiate a deeper dialogue rather than 
>wholesale rejection, which, to me, is a defensive strategy and not true 
>engagement.

I would very much welcome a deeper dialogue on this topic. My first comment
was by no means a wholesale rejection of your position, but simply a plea
to be open-minded, but  also critical of new theories or explanations and
to evaluate them in the light of existing evidence or established
knowledge. (By the way, if one is able to adopt this general stance, one
does not need defensive strategies, since one is open to any challenge :-)


>Please read my quantum psychodyamics paper on
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc
>If anyone has a better theory of these phenomena, I'd be interested in 
>knowing about it.  I hallucinogenesis is not quantum, then the kinds of 
>nonlocal phenomena described throughout the literature cannot be valid data.

If you like to extend this discussion, I think you should provide specific
evidence or data which you think necessitates a quantum physical
explanation or one in terms of non-local effects. I'm very doubtful that
evidence exists which will allow of only one possible mode of explanation,
for example a quantum physical one. Personally, I will be happy to look at
and comment on anything you may present in this respect.


>So, we either reject these data as not fitting our (or any) classical model, 
>or we move the quantum science.  Mind is based on the nonlocal field.  You 
>may call this speculation, and change all my statements to conditional if, 
>then, may be...  I just don't like to write that way.  Imagination is real, 
>it has no "truth," only possibilities.

Nobody can force you to write this way. I simply think it can be seriously
misleading presenting something as factual, which, in fact, is speculative.

I hope that to the careful reader it is clear that I do by no means dismiss
any quantum physical explanation of consciousness. (In fact, I'm currently
reviewing and supporting a  proposal for testing the hypothesis that
distant mentation could be a quantum phenomenon based on non-local
entanglement of individual minds). But we should not rashly accept an
explanation, as appealing as it may be, before it has been seriously put to
the test in the melting pot of science. As far as I know, mathematics is
the only field where a theory can be true only because it is beautiful <wink>

Alex




------------------
MAPS-Forum@xxxxxxxx, a member service of the Multidisciplinary Association
for Psychedelic Studies (to become a member, see www.maps.org/memsub.html).
To [un]subscribe, email the message text,
[un]subscribe maps-forum youraddress to majordomo@xxxxxxxx