Oh, really? What a good coincidence: Louis, David and myself. Three different approaches with apparently one same interest (or target). Let's hope for the best!

Great answer, to me, dear Artur. Very helpful, indeed.

Quantum mechanics, wave mechanics, paring (i.e. entanglement) an the maths about social systems. If I may, these are the four key points you highlight.

I appreciate them. Plus the call for imagination. I am on your side about overcoming the gap between quantum theory and sociology. Not to mention politics or economics, for instance.

If I may include, Rupert Sheldrake/Morphic Resonance and Ervin Laszlo/Akashic Fields, Institute of HeartMath's heart-energy experiments. So many others across disciplines are connecting that which exists on a quantum level, e.g. thought fields - the material world, and human/social contexts. Pleased to know you are interested in strengthening bridges to integrate other ways of knowing and being.  Just my two cents worth. vb

Dear Victoria, I am truly concerned with working on the advance of science via synthesis. I do not buy (any more) the idea of advance via cumulative facts and concepts. And the idea of ruptures and revolutions is very suggested but already very much worked out - nearly worn out.

I think that our world in general cannot be understood at all without quantum theory. However, the human and social sciences remain almost blind to this dimension.

I appreciate your answer, indeed.

Carlos,

In what ways do you envision quantum theory applied to the human and social sciences?

Thank you.

Carlos,

Just rec'd a notice about this. Maybe something useful as a catalyst for your research here?  http://www.globalonenesssummit.org

I just wrote a long answer to you, dear Victoria but the system delayed it.

Please let me then make it shorter, thus: epistemologically the school sciences are somehow still far behind from spearhead science. Such a situation, I guess, must be overcome.

The current state of the social sciences - mainstream social sciences - are to some degree still stuck into classical mechanics. A number of authors have called our attention.

My concern is not about applying quantum theory to the social sciences but exploring the interplay between both fields.

Thank you, Carlos, for explaining deeper for me. I look forward to your research in this regard.

Dear Carlos,

I think that Arthur was right to suggest expanding quantum mechanics to wave theory. But before we still need a lot of work. First of all, social scientists understand real space much less (and it works differently), while in physics potential of interaction depends only on spatial variables.The concepts of density and field are practically not used (see my chapter with use of Euclidean space in economics).

In my article about econo-physics I tried to find analogies between objects in physics and social science, but not in quantum mechanics.

I also think that study of Structures and their stability in social sciences is equally important. Another paper about this issue is attached.

If we want to go to quantum mechanics applied to social sciences, I see at least two areas where similar equations can be written:

a) potential of interaction between pair of elements; if there is a minimum, there exists (compact) wave function as the solution of Schrodinger equation; then we need to understand who are objects (man/woman, employer/employee, etc) and what is the distance (it also can have cultural component, then we need to think about metrics);

b) our motion is space is pretty random for outside observers (although may be clear for us); crowd of people has distribution very close to its density (as a solution to Schrodinger equation, but we need to derive potential); the higher is this density, the higher is probability to buy where we pass buy, thus location of selling points correlates with pedestrian crowd - but I have never seen such a model in economics.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283908757_Role_of_Density_and_Field_in_Spatial_Economics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271500062_Econo-physics_A_Perspective_of_Matching_Two_Sciences

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271499741_Elements_of_Structural_Economics

Article Elements of Structural Economics

Article Econo-physics: A Perspective of Matching Two Sciences

Chapter Role of Density and Field in Spatial Economics

Dear Yuri, thank you very much for pointing these papers to me. I shall work through them. (I have being travelling a lot and I have some days of holidays over here. I shall come back early next week. Thank you)

Dear Victoria:

Last summer I got together with my drawing professor after four decades. He was interested in my efforts to integrate aesthetic theory with recent advances in consciousness studies and embodiment. He repeatedly mentioned Rupert Sheldrake's writings. I wondered if this was an author I should have in my library, so I checked out the Wikipedia article for a quick summary. What I read there suggested strongly that this author is one of those pseudoscientific writers who sells books to people who have not mastered the fine art of critical thinking (as Carl Sagan famously put it). Here is the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

I also checked out this autor's web site and my previous impression was confirmed.

http://www.sheldrake.org/

I think there is a common denominator in science, a basic set of rules, that is essential for inter-, multi- and transdisciplinary discourse. If we ignore them, the conversation tends to fall apart and groups of people lose the possibility to learn from each other by open-mindedly confronting what they think they know with the contributions of other disciplines.

Dear Carlos:

Physics (quantum and otherwise) are evidently part of the Big Picture. As a scientist working in areas usually classified as social and human sciences, my personal obstacle is not having the time nor the inclination to master all the advanced math needed to really understand physics. The best I can do is read a few texts by physicists who have written for a wider public, and keep a critical eye open for pseudoscientific trends like those called "quantum woo" by some skeptics:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo

I recently acquired, but haven't yet read, this book that at first glance seems to be a reasonable attempt to apply physics to consciousness theory. It was recommended to me by an astrophysicist colleague (married to a neuoscientist) here at the University of Guanajuato:

Edelman, Gerald M.; Tononi, Giulio (2000). A universe of consciousness: How matter becomes imagination, New York, Basic Books.

David,

I read Sheldrake's book: Science set Free.  If you look at Sheldrake track record, he certainly was a serious biological scientists for many many years.  At some point Sheldrake started to  investigate more controversial topic such telepathy-type interconnections between organisms. But Sheldrake always remained empirical and always tested experimentally all of his ideas.  How rigourous was his emprical testing I do not know. He never posits some surnatural realm; it is clearly a naturalist and I do not think he write what he write only for selling books.  I do not think he can be put in the basket of the pseudo-scientists.  Is his research promissing, leading somewhere?  I do not know.  Is he worth reading for aesthetic?   I do not know.

The best part of science is that over time its inherent self-criticism allows for a process of continuous correction. Sheldrake's triumphs seem to be more of a commercial nature and his ideas have not fared well in the more rigorous arena of academic discussion. We'll see how this all works out in the long run. Meanwhile, I wouldn't place any bets on "morphic resonance" as an explanatory principle. Call me a skeptic!

Carlos,

Quantum theory has been developed for understanding phenomena at the atomic and sub-atomic scales. There a small number of physicists who have speculated that some quantum effects may be involved in the working of neurons or even set of neurons and these are important for understanding consciousness.  None of these many claims have been clearly support by experiments.  I do not see at this point how such speculations could at this point be informative and relevant for a social scientist which is interested to social phenomena involving many individuals.  

Remember the early 1800's when electricity was still mysterious and known to be involved in the working of the muscles.  It sparkled all kind of wild speculations (Frankeinstein) .  It seems that it is a human tendency to take two mysterious phenomena and mixed the two.   Consciousness is still mysterious and the Quantum is still mysterious for this make them good candidate for : quantum consciousness compound mystery.  Archeologues for a while where puzzled by how the ancient egyptian could built the pyramid and it was in the years of the UFO so some came with the simple logic solution: pyramid were built with the help of extraterrestrials.  

Dear Artur, that is indeed the case. I stated the question in relation to quantum mechanics just to point out the most general frame. However, quantum waves are to be necessarily taken into account.

The social sciences seem to have remained at their best in the biological metaphor. And vis-à-vis physics, most of them (I wish I was wrong!) barely come just to statistical mechanics.

I stroingly believe that the bridge between the social, i.e. man sciences and the natural sciences is to be overcome - if we want to better understand our world and come together with better answers to the challenges we are currently facing. Whence my question.

Dear colleagues:

The authors of the RationalWiki page on Rupert Sheldrake are somewhat more frank in their criticism than I was a few hours ago:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

For balance, you can find a lot of his publications on his ResearchGate profile and decide for yourselves about their scientific status:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rupert_Sheldrake

Dear David, I personally read Sheldrake with lots of precaution, taking this bit here and leaving that bit there. Probably there is a good intuition behind everything. However, à la lettre, it might be not totally right, I guess.

We are just symbolic primates trying to make some sense out of our experiences. One nice thing about the scientific perspective is that it helps us distinguish what is possibly right from what is probably --or certainly-- wrong, keeping our heads pointed in a reasonable direction. The other nice thing about science is that its basic ground rules permit dialogue between various disciplines, enabling us to advance together toward a more complete understanding of ourselves and our context. When a group of scholars rejects these rules and goes off into a corner to reinforce its own biased views, anything is possible, but that group exludes itself from having a place at the grand banquet of collective inquiry.

To be sincere, the gap between the sciences and disciplines, f.i., "the two cultures" is more an ideologic bias, than an accomplished fact in the scientific community. I would dare say that it is vis-à-vis society that we must be able to bridge, here, quantum theory and the social sciences. By and large a better understanding of the world at large is a wonderful mean to better manage our world and reality.

Thank you for your comment, dear David.

David,

What you said is generally true but sometime

''When a group of scholars rejects these rules and goes off into a corner to reinforce its own biased views, anything is possible'' 

will lead to  discoveries.  Discoveries are sometime not occuring in the general direction where it is expected.  We have to remember history and many time in the past scientists collectively got it very wrong.  Just check the wikipedia ''scientific racism'' to see that scientists were collectively sometime at the vanguard of craziness.

Regards

Thank you for posting this question, Carlos.

Louis:

It is important to clarify that I am not talking about challenging consensus. This is something I have done consistently throughout my career as a researcher, so I speak from experience. I am talking about the basic ground rules for rational, evidence-based inquiry. These too have been refined through time, but as a whole have been far more stable. Popper's principle of falsifiability, for example, marks a watershed between positivistic science and contemporary science. Scientists used to try to prove a hypothesis. Now we try to refute multiple working hypotheses, obtaining in the end refutable hypotheses that haven't (yet) been refuted. That's as far as it goes. Much contemporary criticism of science misses this crucial point, preferring to knock down straw-man caricatures of what science used to be a century ago, or of more recent abuses which distort scientific studies to create authoritative ideologies, something that goes against the very essence of science.

In science, insisting on methodological rigor is not the same as closed-minded conservatism, as many antiscientists and pseudoscientists would have you believe. Science, when done properly, is completely open to innovative ideas, but then the filters of rational inquiry are applied, and not everything people would like to believe passes these tough tests. This bothers people with dearly held biases; thus the antiscientific backlash, on one hand, and the proliferation of pseudoscience, on the other.

David,

I agree that trying to prove an hypothesis wrong occupies an important place in science but I do think that the testing of hypothesis do provide support (not proof) for an hypothesis.  I am closer to Michael Polanyi than to Popper.  Polanyi insists on the importance of the sriving towards the truth in science although one has to concede that truth will never be reached. A scientist does not wake up in the morning all exciting about falsifying science.

I agree that insisting on methodological rigor is not closed-minded conservatism. On the front of the honest methodology we should all be conservative.  It is on that front that we should separate scientists from pseudo-scientists.  This page on sheldrake: 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

criticized Sheldrake on the topic he choosed or cite other scientists that simply say this is not science.  THere is no evidences in terms of bad methodology that is cited.

Science is a human affair and as all such human affairs where job, friendship, money and power are involved, there are sometime a dirty business at work that has nothing to do with the official scientific process.   In the best cases, these biased are minor and do not interfere too much but in many cases it interfere beyond acceptability.  The diagnosis of desease , the process of drug approval and so many domains have now been dominated by money considerations and we are not in scientific process anymore.

Philosophical preferences aside, what matters most in this profession is what you are accomplishing and how you are doing it. An essential part of the process is the practice of submitting one's most dearly-held ideas to a rigorous process of criticism, looking for evidence that would tend to refute what one thinks one believes.

Here's something else to think about, Louis. If you make honesty one of the criteria for separating science from pseudoscience, as some people have done, then there is no dishonesty in science; the moment the work is done without honesty, it passes from the category of science into that of pseudoscience. Thus all science is honest; it may get things wrong, but never intentionally.

I must say that I don't agree with your appraisal of the RationalWiki article on Sheldrake. There is a lot more there than you say. Perhaps a more careful reading is in order.

David,

I do not disagree with you but I put emphasis on different points and it is most probably due to very different personal experience and personality. I re-read the Rational Wiki and did  find that the author do not do a good job at presenting the facts.  It used all kind of insults one after the other.  It is like a street fight.

Yes, Luis, the article itself is biased (but with a declared critical, pro-science bias) and uses a burlesque tone (more like a comedy routine than a street fight, I think) as a rhetorical device. This is understandable when you look at RationalWiki's mission statement:

"Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

"1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.

"2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.

"3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.

"4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

"We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue."

At any rate, my point was that there are methodological criticisms in this article that go beyond citiations of scientists that say Sheldrake's work isn't scientific.

Groups of skeptics like RationalWiki provide an important service to society, since the majority of the world's population tends to fall prey to anti- and pseudo-scientific charlatans. Carl Sagan makes the important point, in The demon-haunted world, that an effective democracy cannot function unless populations are capable of critical thinking, understanding critical thinking to be the ability to apply the fundamental rules of science to incoming information. By the same token, populations will continue to be at the mercy of politicians, religious leaders, and marketing strategists until they can acquire this basic skill.

Those of us who make our livings as educators and researchers, particularly those whose income is from public budgets, have a grave responsibility in this sense.

David,

Could you cite one example of methodological criticism in this RationalWiki?  When it is well done debunking speudo-scientist is very positive but the pseudo-scientist debunking should not become itself pseudo-scientist or a kind of witch hunt or scientism inquisition.  Debunking speudo-scientist is a kind of immune system and so it is important that the immune system be not infected by scientism.  Restraint and neutral tone should be of order and not burlesque tone.

Dear David and Louis, I do appreciate the intelligence of your debate/conversation. You certainly enrich this thread.

You are welcome, Carlos. I'm afraid we have taken things a bit off course, but hopefully not too far.

Louis wrote: "Could you cite one example of methodological criticism in this RationalWiki?"

David's reply:

I don't wish to inflate this thread with extensive quotes from an article that is available online (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake), so I'll answer in an abbreviated manner. The methodological criticism may be found in the following paragraphs:

Untitled introductory section - paragraphs 2, 3, and 4.

"Background and credentials" - paragraph 5.

"Ideas" - paragraph 2.

You will have to click on some of the hyperlinks to follow the complete arguments.

I'm afraid you won't find "restraint and neutral tone" on RationalWiki, because that is pretty much the opposite of the tone these people have chosen to adopt. (See "Point of view" on the page http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Community_Standards).

Personally, I appreciate the humorous side, since it makes the site more accessible, less pedantic, and more effective at getting across its points. Perhaps this resonates with my irreverent side, but I find it appealing. Check out the entry on "Bullshit," for example:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bullshit

I really enjoyed the video at the end.

Another interesting entry is the one called "Tone argument":

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument

I am just getting to know this site. My first visit was yesterday. I shall be returning, I'm sure, and I shall share it with students in my research methodology courses and thesis seminars, as it is much more digestible than scholarly philosophical tomes like those by Karl Popper and Mario Bunge. These should be read too, but RationalWiki is a lot more fun! (:o  )

 Dear Louis;

It is one of the most challenging issues for me. Perhaps you remember our discussion concerning God's existence? I still appreciate your answers. Great!

Best greetings

Pawel

As we all know, quantum theory is a larger scope than has some branches such as quantum physics, quantum biology, quantum chemistry, and many fundamental contributions to technology. Quantum logic should also be mentioned.

Some of these branches have, of course their own divisions or specialisation. That's why my question tries to take a more general overview. Thank you to you, all.

Dear Carlos:

In your understanding, what are some of the more relevant applications, or potential applications, of quantum theory to research in the social/human sciences?

Dear Carlos,

Michel Bitbol provides an interesting look at quantum mechanics.  According to him it is not a physical theory using probability but a generalized form of probability calculus that can be applied for prediction in any domains where the phenomena's detection participate in their production and thus impact on their predictions.

LA MECANIQUE QUANTIQUE COMME THEORIE DES PROBABILITES GENERALISEE

http://michel.bitbol.pagesperso-orange.fr/genproba.html

Prologue

La thèse que je défendrai ici tient en deux propositions. Premièrement, la mécanique quantique n'est pas qu'une théorie physique faisant usage du calcul des probabilités; elle est elle-même une forme généralisée de calcul des probabilités, doublée d'un procédé d'évaluation probabiliste par l'utilisation réglée de symétries. Deuxièmement, la mécanique quantique n'a pas seulement une fonction prédictive comme les autres théories physiques; elle consiste en une formalisation des conditions de possibilité de n'importe quelle prédiction portant sur des phénomènes dont les circonstances de détection sont aussi des conditions de production.

Dear David, please be kind to me (it's just a rhetorical expression):

As a whole, the social science remain nearly 100 years behind the progress of sciences, roughly. Quantum theory is by and large the most tested, verified, confirmed, falsified, etc., of all theories. If so, one can barely have a good understanding of reality and the world without a solid understanding of it.

When taken form the tail and not from the head, the ongoing crises can be partially understood as mindset that has not permitted to cope and solve the problems and challenges. I have the intuition that QT can substantially help.

(I am currently writing a chapter for a book in this issue).

Your project sounds interesting, Carlos. I am also trying to integrate recent findings from a wide range of disciplines in an attempt to contribute to a theory of art for the 21st century, in harmony with what has emerged in related fields. I haven't used physics, though. I'm having enough trouble trying to understand our biological nature. There does seem to be some promise, though, in seeing art within the framework of our bodily selves interacting with our environment. Please keep us posted as to the advances in your project, as the combined light from all sources is needed to see clearly (or as clearly as is possible for primates like ourselves).

David,

I am on a project very similar to your project.  I have interesting pieces but lack a central story.  The biological evolution of the mammals up to our bonobo-like ancestors has put all the pieces.  And how these pieces were used in  the particular turn in our bonobo-like ancestor towards art/humanity.   There is a word that resonate right now which is  ''mediation'' : ''art as mediation'' and ''the artist as the mediator''.  What is the fundamental nature of this turn to art/humanity?  This is the question.  

Dear Paweł ,

What is the most challenging issues ? 

Dear David, just between us. I am travelling to Guadalajara, where I was invited to teach a seminar. The I shall go to León, for a conference, too. After a couple of days I'll teach a seminar at the UNAM. If possible (...) we could have a coffee somewhere in between...

Oh, really? What a good coincidence: Louis, David and myself. Three different approaches with apparently one same interest (or target). Let's hope for the best!

Please let me know when you have your itinerary worked out, Carlos. I think you would enjoy Guanajuato. It's about an hour from León. It was a silver mining town with major booms in the 18th and 19th centuries, reflected in its monuments. Today it is an academic and tourist mecca with about 85,000 peope. It's a UNESCO World Heritage site.

About the article of Osborne RH et al. Health Literacy: a concept with potential to greatly impact the infectious diseases field.

Excellent article !! I remember Elliott P. Joslin M.D (1869 - 1962 U.S.A.) who said: "The education in the treatment of Diabetes isn't a part, It is the treatment".

Sincerely.

Diana Rodriguez Hurtado M.D FACP

Principal Professor School of Medicine "Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia". Lima, PERU.

[email protected]

It seems quantum theoretical effects are observable in social sciences , for example,it is known , I think in  Probability theory, polling that the very act of taking a pre-poll influences the actual poll. Is it not then similar to quantum observation phenomena,where observing changes the result?

Cheers

Right, dear Narasim. There are a couple of texts (Wendt, and Laszlo) who consider quantum effects at the level of thought. However, we can trace these quantum effects in other levels, too.. 

Thought is a creation of energy and if energy is equal to matter, then thought can be related to matter. Matter may look as if it is holding or creating a thought but in actuality its the energy within matter that holds and creates the thought. The non locality of thought is still debatable. From a quantum perspective if we can determine this possibility it can help man be more social and understanding but knowing man and his ego it might get used for the wrong purpose.

Edelman and Tononi explore the relations between physical events and consciousness. They touch on quantum mechanics very briefly, and in a tangential manner, in their description of what they call "degeneracy." This is what they say:

“DEGENERACY

“All selectional systems share a remarkable property that is as unique as it is essential to their functioning: In such systems, there are typically many different ways, not necessarily structurally identical, by which a particular output occurs. We call this property degeneracy.7 Degeneracy is seen in quantum mechanics in certain solutions of the Schrödinger equation and in the genetic code, where, because of the degenerate third position in triplet code words, many different DNA sequences can specify the same protein.

    “Put briefly, degeneracy is reflected in the capacity of structurally different components to yield similar outputs or results. In a selectional nervous system, with its enormous repertoire of variant neural circuits even within one brain area, degeneracy is inevitable. Without it, a selectional system, no matter how rich its diversity, would rapidly fail--in a species, almost all mutations would be lethal; in an immune system, too few antibody variants would work; and in the brain, if only one network path was available, signal traffic would fail. Degeneracy can operate at one level of organization or across many. It is seen in gene networks, in the immune system, in the brain, and in evolution itself. For example, combinations of different genes can lead to the same structure, antibodies with different structures can recognize the same foreign molecule equally well, and different living forms can evolve to be equally well adapted to a specific environment.

    “There are countless examples of degeneracy in the brain. The complex meshwork of connections in the thalamocortical system assures that a large number of different neuronal groups can similarly affect, in one way or another, the output of a given subset of neurons. For example, a large number of different brain circuits can lead to the same motor output or action. Localized brain lesions often reveal alternative pathways that are capable of generating similar behaviors. Therefore, a manifest consequence of degeneracy in the nervous system is that certain neurological lesions may often appear to have little effect, at least within a familiar environment. Degeneracy also appears at the cellular level. Neural signaling mechanisms utilize a great variety of transmitters, receptors, enzymes, and so-called second messengers. The same changes in gene expression can be brought about by different combinations of these biochemical elements.

    “Degeneracy is not just a useful feature of selectional systems; it is also an unavoidable consequence of selectional mechanisms. Evolutionary selective pressure is typically applied to individuals at the end of a long series of complex events. These events involve many interacting elements at multiple temporal and spatial scales, and it is unlikely that well-defined functions can be neatly assigned to independent subsets of elements or processes in biological networks. For example, if selection occurs for our ability to walk in a particular way, connections within and among many different brain structures and to the muscoloskeletal apparatus are all likely to be modified over time. While locomotion will be affected, many other functions, including our ability to stand or jump, will also be influenced as a result of the degeneracy of neural circuits. The ability of natural selection to give rise to a large number of nonidentical structures yielding similar functions increases both the robustness of biological networks and their adaptability to unforeseen environments.”

Source:

Edelman, Gerald M.; Tononi, Giulio (2000), A universe of consciousness: How matter becomes imagination, New York, Basic Books, pp. 86-87.

Carlos: you say "There are a couple of texts (Wendt, and Laszlo) who consider quantum effects at the level of thought. However, we can trace these quantum effects in other levels, too."

Can you please provide the complete references to the texts by Wendt and Laszlo so that we may follow up on this?

Contzen has an interesting article relating to what we are discussing at present:

Pereira, Contzen (2016), “Is it quantum sentience of quantum consciousness? A review of social behaviours observed in primitive and present-day microorganisms,” in NeuroQuantology, An Interdisciplinary Journal of Neuroscience and Quantum Physics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 16-17 (http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/874, access: 1 April 2016).

This journal is partly open access (articles published during the past two years require a subscription) and it surely contains a lot of material that is pertinent to this discussion:

http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal

Contzen's article can be downloaded here at ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299445549_Is_it_Quantum_Sentience_or_Quantum_Consciousness_A_Review_of_Social_Behaviours_Observed_in_Primitive_and_Present-Day_Microorganisms

Article Is it Quantum Sentience or Quantum Consciousness? A Review o...

Following a note in Contzen's article, I found the following text (which, by the way, is open access; for the discussion of this article in the same issue, by several authors, one requires institutional access or a big budget for purchasing articles on line).

Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014). “Consciousness in the universe, a review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory,” in Physics of Life Reviews (Elsevier), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 39-78 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188, access: 1 April 2016).

This article summarizes and updates the authors' earlier work, in which they see consciousness as emerging from quantum coherence in microtubules. For a summary of the criticism of this view, see:

Blackmore, Susan (2012), Consciousness: An introduction, 2nd ed., New York/Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 282-285.

On page 284 Blackmore has this to say:

"If quantum computing does occur in the brain, this is very important, but it only adds another layer of complexity to the way the brain works. If there is a Hard Problem, it might be rephrased here as 'How does subjective experience arise from objective reaction in the microtubules?' The strange effects entailed in quantum processes do not, of themselves, have anything to say about the experience of light or space or pain or color. Nor does invoking the peculiar time-related effects of quantum theory explain the peculiarities of conscious judgments about time. One of the strengths of the theory is supposed to be that it accounts for the unitary sense of self, but as we have seen, this sense may itself be an illusion whose origins would not be explained by appealing to nonlocality and quantum coherence."

As Lewis Caroll's character Alice said, “Curiouser and curiouser!”

Oops, that was four posts in a row. I'll leave this thread for a while, and give the rest of you a chance to post.

OK, I gave you guys three hours and nobody has posted anything new. I just popped back into this thread to mention that I have looked over the entire issue where Hameroff and Penrose explore the relations between consciousness and quantum physics. There are several critical reviews of this article, plus the replies of Hameroff and Penrose to the criticism. Carlos (and other followers of this question), I am certain that you would find the entire discussion fascinating, and I highly recommend reading the following articles:

Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014), “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory,” in Physics of Life Reviews (Elsevier), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 39-78 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15710645/11/1, access: 1 April 2016).

Tuszynski, Jack A. (2014), “The need for a physical basis of cognitive process: Comment on ‘Consciousness in the universe. A review of the “Orch OR” theory’ by Hameroff and Penrose,” in Physics of Life Reviews (Elsevier), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 79-80 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15710645/11/1, access: 1 April 2016).

Chopra, Deepak (2014), “Reality and consciousness: A view from the East: Comment on ‘Consciousness in the universe: A review of the “Orch OR” theory’ by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose,” in Physics of Life Reviews (Elsevier), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 81-82 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15710645/11/1, access: 1 April 2016).

Ghosh, Subatra; Sahu, Satyajit; Bandyopadhyay, Anirban (2014), “Evidence of massive global synchronization and the consciousness: Comment on ‘Consciousness in the universe: A review of the “Orch OR” theory’ by Hameroff and Penrose,” in Physics of Life Reviews (Elsevier), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 83-84 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15710645/11/1, access: 1 April 2016).

Jumper, Chanelle C.; Scholes, Gregory D. (2014), “Life–warm, wet and noisy? Comment on ‘Consciousness in the universe: A review of the “Orch OR” theory’ by Hameroff and Penrose,” in Physics of Life Reviews (Elsevier), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 85-86 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15710645/11/1, access: 1 April 2016).

Lucas, John (2014), “The face of freedom. Comment on ‘Consciousness in the universe, a review of the “Orch OR” theory’ by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose,” in Physics of Life Reviews (Elsevier), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 87-88 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15710645/11/1, access: 1 April 2016).

Tandy, Charles (2014), “Are you (almost) a zombie? Conscious thoughts about ‘Consciousness in the universe’ by Hameroff and Penrose,” in Physics of Life Reviews (Elsevier), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 89-90 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15710645/11/1, access: 1 April 2016).

Pino, Samanta; Di Mauro, Ernesto (2014), “How to conciliate Popper with Cartesius: Comment on: ‘Consciousness in the universe. A review of the “Orch OR” theory’ by S. Hameroff and R. Penrose,” in Physics of Life Reviews (Elsevier), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 91-93 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15710645/11/1, access: 1 April 2016).

Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014), “Reply to seven commentaries on ‘Consciousness in the universe. Review of the “Orch OR” theory’,” in Physics of Life Reviews (Elsevier), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 94-100 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15710645/11/1, access: 1 April 2016).

Reimers, Jeffrey R.; McKemmish, Laura K.; McKenzie, Ross H.; Mark, Alan E.; Hush, Noel S. (2014), “The revised Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not scientifically justified: Comment on ‘Consciousness in the universe. A review of the “Orch OR” theory’ by Hameroff and Penrose,” in Physics of Life Reviews (Elsevier), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 101-103 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15710645/11/1, access: 1 April 2016).

Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014), “Reply to criticism of the ‘Orch OR’ qubit – ‘Orchestrated objective reduction’ is scientifically justified,” in Physics of Life Reviews (Elsevier), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 104-112 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15710645/11/1, access: 1 April 2016).

David,

I followed that discussion back in the 90's and found it fascinating.  I have a bit cool down from my original enthusiam.   

Louis:

My impression (indirect, mostly through reading Blackmore's summary, cited above) of Penrose's initial formulation of the microtubule theory was that it had not fared well in the arena of scientific debate. That is why I found it interesting to see that in 2014, Hameroff and Penrose had reformulated it, taking into account previous criticism, and that their ideas were recently discussed in a scientific journal. The essence of this new round of debates can be seen at a glance in the authors' reply to seven critical articles, on pages 94 to 100 of the issue cited in my previous post.

I was surprised to see Chopra's review in this issue, although I don't think he contributed much to the discussion, other than vague faith-based speculation, which seemed somewhat out of place in this context. Of course the entire discussion is a bit vague and speculative; I guess at this stage in the development of consciousness theory it would have to be.

By the way, Hameroff has a ResearchGate profile with additional articles related to this topic:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stuart_Hameroff

Dear David and Louis, my case is exactly like one of this threads here on RG: I do not always receive notifications. Whence my silence... Ok. I have to look at the updates here above at the right to catch up with posts and threads.

I wrote a paper on quantum synchronicity (uploaded here on RG), and then I had the opportunity to plunge into Penrose and Hameroff's thesis. There is almost a unanimity that the brain exhibits quantum effects - although Hameroff's claims are not always accepted in the scientific community.

In any case, my own take is that the brain is a non-classical system that, however has become a classic phenomenon - due to culture. (Huh?)...

Don't worry about not being fast on the draw, Carlos. These virtual discussions can take days. I was just concerned about monopolizing the thread, since I posted four answers in a row. That is, I wasn't complaining, just trying to justify the avalanche I unleashed, since I had promised to be quiet for a while.

I found your paper and shall have a look.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267737636_Synchronicity_Among_Biological_and_Computational_Levels_of_an_Organism_Quantum_Biology_and_Complexity

Article Synchronicity Among Biological and Computational Levels of a...

David and Carlos,

Humans have discovered this new quantum physics since a century and we have design all kind of systems with it.  I have no doubt that life have used that physics since the beginning in all kind of its systems. Not only it surely has used it but has probably used the physics we will discover in 100 years from now. Life is a designer scientist intrinsically self-reflecting.  We are like our mother.

Right dear Louis, with jus a tiny remar. I think that the right concepto would be: quantum theory or quantum science, for we have quantum physics, quantum biology, quantum chemistry, quantum logics, and many tech advances. In fact, no current technology is nowadays possible without the grounds of quantum - here, physics.

By and large, the most tested, verified, confirmed, falsified theory of all in the entire history of mankind is quantum theory, i.e. quantum physics. Literally.

And yet, I have the impression (I wish I was wrong) that in general social and human scientists remain far away in the backstage regarding the robustness of the methodological, logical, scientific and philosophical advances of/made by quantum theory.

You are certainly on the right track, Carlos. Throughout the 20th century hyperspecialization gave us detailed knowledge about many aspects of reality. Now the challenge is to confront what we think we understand in one area with the evidence from other areas, so we can see what should remain on the discussion table and what we need to discard. It's not easy, but it has to be done.

Dear David, we have been damned by analysis. Te entire history of the west is based on that. very scarcely have we tried to live and think in terms of synthesis. Easy sad, hard to be done. You point to the importance of a synthetical thinking. Bingo! I'm with you, indeed. 

David and Carlos, thank you for quoting my work in this discussion. Hopefully, you guys found the article interesting. 

Your article is very interesting, Contzen. I usually think of consciousness as a shared feature of animals with nervous systems. It is interesting to read how the concept may be expanded to encompass simpler forms of life.

Absolutely, der David. That?s the point in Contzen's paper. We've been gaining, all in all, a great room ranging from the classical anthropological concerns on to non-anthropological levels. The very understanding of life is what is at the base. 

Dear Contzen,

I read your paper and I like it and found it interesting. As you know ''consciousness''is our primal reality but we have no concept of it.  We live it but cannot describe this reality from a 3th person perspective, or a scientific perspective.  Many think that it cannot be described from a third person perspective since it is a lived experience.  Like many philosopher and scientist since at least 4 centuries I am totally convince that all living organisms are conscious , even electrons.  Leibniz built such metaphysic with its monads.  More recently, people such Wundt were convinced that bacterias were conscious.  Or in biology, Von Uexkull the founder of theoretical biology were convinced as well. But nobody could provide a shread of a third person viewpoint evidence for it.  Providing evidence for it for humans is not done from 3th person perspective critera. We do not know what it is in human from a 3th person viewpoint and we have the same problem with all organism.  Some call this the hard problem of consciousness.  I personally do not thing it is a scientific problem given that consciousness is intrinsically a living experience; It cannot be said. I see this red spot; if you are blind from birth that last sentence cannot have any meaning and nobody can tell you about a red spot.   

 In your paper you sometime added the adjective conscious but everywhere where you add it, what you said did not need it.

 The person that came closer to define ''consciousness'' is Shrodinger in ''What is life'': it is the breaking point of automated behabior where learning  occurs. Actually it does not define it but simply point a finger towards it in the third perspective where it appears as a singularity.  

Dear Louis, Carlos and David, thank you very much for your comments and I am glad you can relate my work in your discussions. Consciousness for me simply defined as awareness. If you aware of your surrounding then you are conscious and if you are not aware your either dead or unconscious. Consciousness is the base of all living and non living what we seek in the living are the things that make consciousness move to a higher state of consciousness which begins with adaptation a lower form of intelligence to the most highest form of intelligence I.e language but the driver for all is consciousness. The hard problem of consciousness is the 'why' which usually gets entangled with the 'how' and the problem of research in consciousness is that without fully understanding the how we attempt the problem of why and that's why it fails. Explaining a concept from a first person perspective without an priori can help understand the why, but unfortunately it may differ from one person to another and therefore convincing the other would get difficult.

A researcher, H. Stapp, has been working to some extent on the subject. He goes as far as claiming that the universe is conscious and alive - everything based on QT. Does it make sense to you?

Contzen: I understand your point, but I don't agree that language as the highest form of consciousness (I am assuming you mean verbal language here). In Western religious and philosophical traditions this is the usual view, but humans are capable of very complex, highly structured states of awareness, thought, and expression without verbal language, for example in "visual thinking", as Rudolf Arnheim called it in a classic book with that phrase as a title. Musical awareness, thinking, and performance is another example. It could be said that we have a multimodal sort of consciousness, verbal language being an important mode, especially for social interaction, although it does not necessarily operate at a "higher" cognitive level. We use verbal, visual, musical, and other "languages." In my last sentence I have expanded the definition of "language" to encompass various cognitive modes.

As a conjecture, we could easily say that human beings in particular and living beings in general are exactly the interfase between classical and quantum systems, i.e. behaviours. Rightly understood, we -including our brain- are neither 100% classical nor 100% quantum phenomena. Would you agree with that?

David, I am a strong believer of pansychisim and that is the reason I believe that everything is aware whether it may express or not express. Basic awareness gives rise to complexity in intelligence but the awareness remains constant for a cell and grows with multicellularity...this which many term as protoconsciousness or sentience in lower organisms. Everything is quantum driven but up to a limit, the limit which keeps changing as we keep reducing but there is also a limit to reductionism thats the point where all becomes phenomenal. We may someday say that all of it is pure energy I.e. we will reduce all of this to energy but why this energy would never be known...this is what I believe to be the hard problem of consciousness. The quantum world would be of no meaning if the classical world never exist and vice versa, they are interdependent.

Well, that is precisely a most fascinating question: when, how, and why the wave function collapses!

Sorry Carlos, the earlier answer was for you. David, your absolutely right, I did mean theart of learning and using a verbal language. The reason i say language is because of it being the means by which humans express their egoistic views and see the tings thatthe would like to see. This is where consciousness bbecomes a possession of only the human brain and all other brains seem unconscious. I do agree that there are several other states of consciousness much higher than language and altered states but still lie in disagreement of several human beings. For them consciousness is a derivative of intelligence and plasticity just like cognition, so if an lower organisms is knocked out for a while, the organism is demonstrating a reflex action which is genetically transfered via intution but not loss of consciousness.

Carlos,

Not all interpretation of quantum mechanics consider that there is a collapse of the wave function because in these the wave function is just a mathematical predicting device and not a part of reality.  In Newton theory of gravitation, there are forces.  Is it part of reality?  Not according to GR , there it is a curvature of spacetime.  For another theory it is something else.  But we can do like Kant and consider that none of these external mathematical relation belong to reality as it is but are usefull predicting concepts that will become obsolete eventually and replace by others.

Contzen, for context, I should mention that I work in a Visual Arts department, I was trained as a visual artist and I did my doctoral project on the communication system used in central Mexican pictorial codices by Otomi painters/scribes; this system straddles the blurry border between Western concepts of "visual arts" and "writing." But I won't go into that here, as it would distract from this interesting discussion on quantum theory and the social and human sciences. I know very little about quantum theory, so I'll just sit back and read what the rest of you have to say.

Dear Louis, I truly thank you for reminding me this. I had forgotten this point. Great!

One  interpretations was set out in the 1920s by French physicist Louis de Broglie8, and expanded in the 1950s by US physicist David Bohm9, 10. According to de Broglie–Bohm models, particles have definite locations and properties, but are guided by some kind of 'pilot wave' that is often identified with the wavefunction. This would explain the double-slit experiment because the pilot wave would be able to travel through both slits and produce an interference pattern on the far side, even though the electron it guided would have to pass through one slit or the other.

In 2005, de Broglie–Bohmian mechanics received an experimental boost from an unexpected source. Physicists Emmanuel Fort, now at the Langevin Institute in Paris, and Yves Couder at the University of Paris Diderot gave the students in an undergraduate laboratory class what they thought would be a fairly straightforward task: build an experiment to see how oil droplets falling into a tray filled with oil would coalesce as the tray was vibrated. Much to everyone's surprise, ripples began to form around the droplets when the tray hit a certain vibration frequency. “The drops were self-propelled — surfing or walking on their own waves,” says Fort. “This was a dual object we were seeing — a particle driven by a wave.”

Since then, Fort and Couder have shown that such waves can guide these 'walkers' through the double-slit experiment as predicted by pilot-wave theory, and can mimic other quantum effects, too11. This does not prove that pilot waves exist in the quantum realm, cautions Fort. But it does show how an atomic-scale pilot wave might work. “We were told that such effects cannot happen classically,” he says, “and here we are, showing that they do.”

See video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHHaDWEWtQE

The chapter you tell is a most fantastic one, indeed. Not to mention your grace as a story-teller, by de the way.

The discoveries and advances in the quantum world have been simply wondrous. Id' like to add that it was Bohm who made possible a re-born of quantum physics while working in Brazil where we happened to meet R. Feymann, who was studying a post-doc, at the time. Whiteout Bohm's work, probably (?) atomic physics would have prevailed absolutely.

Carlos,

I just cut and paste from: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585

Usually I put the source when I cut and paste but I forgot.

Regards

Carlos,

The following paper is worth reading.

John Archibald Wheeler: Law Without Law

Pages 182–213 in:

Quantum Theory and Measurement

Edited by

John Archibald Wheeler

and

Wojciech Hubert Zurek

Princeton Series in Physics

Princeton University Press, 1983

http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/kaniol/a360/wheeler_law_without_law.pdf

It is not difficult to read. The delayed-choice experiments are fascinating and they tend to make us understand that the act of observation is creating the phenomena and not simply observing it.

I appreciate it, des Louis. I shall read tonight.

Lately artist John Jupe (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Jupe4) has been attempting to understand visual perception in terms of mesoscopic physics, which involves quantum physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoscopic_physics). His latest video is available on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1IocBTFbo4&feature=youtu.be).

I wish I would be able to understand papers you proposed, since the issue still fascinates me.

At least I have been able to get the Schroedinger's contribution to quantum mechanics.It applies not only to a Schroedinger's cat - look at the cartoons (I believe I did  not hurt anybody).

Pawel,

We can continue this thought experiment using  the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics.  In that interpretation the world has splitted when the tumb was open.  In our world, Jesus was alife and we had the history we know about.  But there is another world were when the tomb was open and Jesus was dead and they have quite a bit different history.  But in both world, whatever happen, they are people that did not believe the withnesses.

Quite subtle and accurate at the same time, dear Louis. You rightly made your point.

Dear Louis and other discussants,

Within the psychology of spirituality, there is quite common conviction that the quantum physic's approach is the appropriate platform for explanation of consciousness. See the attached paper.

I have a little doubt if this interpretation is only ostensible. However, with some reservation, I consider such approach fascinating.

There is, as it happens a large amount of literature concerning quantum since and spirituality. However, I personally, would be very careful about it. Slippery and deviant approaches may slip under door...

In any case, Pawel's point, I believe, is the non-reductionist consideration of spirituality to the classical world. A most reasonable claim,

 Interdisciplinarity restricted to the 'exact' sciences is no interdisciplinarity at all. Put differently, the efforts of the Institute for Quantum Social and Cognitive Science (established in 2014 with support of the University of Leicester) to promote and develop (in association with the Center Leo Apostel of the Free University of Brussels) ‘high level research on the identification of quantum structures in non-physical domains, in particular, in socio-economic and cognitive science’ are bound to fail without engaging the insights of human or cultural sciences.    

Great reference, dear Hans. I concur with you: real interdisciplinary is among "families" of sciences and disciplines: the human and social with engineering and natural sciences, and vice versa. 

The underlying assumption in the social sciences is that consciousness and social life are ultimately classical physical/material phenomena. Alexander Wendt, supported by Stuart Hamerhoff (director of Tucson Center for Consciousness Studies), challenges this assumption in his book Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology (CUP, 2015) by proposing that consciousness is a macroscopic quantum mechanical phenomenon. He justifies the insertion of quantum theory into social scientific debates, introduces social scientists to quantum theory, and develops the implications of this metaphysical perspective for the question of the nature of language in linguistics and the agent-structure problem in sociology. However, the controversy over the interpretations of quantum mechanics has not been settled yet and Wendt's argument raises thorny questions about the profound implications of the burgeoning science of complex systems for the social and human sciences. Perhaps we should concur with the views of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Bernard d'Espignat (1921-2015).

Man is – other than what La Mettrie (1709-1751) thought he is – more than a machine. Able to transcend, to reach beyond himself, he is both a part of and apart from nature. We are a duality, a coin with two sides. Having – like the Roman god Janus – two faces, we are (contrary to what Francis Crick was, and Dick Swaab has been, claiming) NOT our brains. We are embodied. Mind and body are (in spite of what religious leaders want us to believe) inseparable from each other, but neither can they be identified with one another. More than that: though physically separated from each other, we are united, i.e. we are profoundly embedded, not only socially (Mitwelt) but also environmentally (Umwelt). ‘No man is an island’ is a truism modern man seems to have forgotten. The chasm between nature/matter and culture/mind is still to be bridged, the chasm that currently divides the scientific community. 

I do know Wendt's book dear Hans. One of the few good books on the interplay between social sciences and quantum theory. (Not to mention the classical one: Quantum Society, by Zohar, which to my taste remains as a classic although rather loose text).

All in all, please correct me, I have the impression that social sciences - at large -, remain still in the 19th Century, in spite of notable "technical" details, such as Foucault's, or  Bordieu's, f.i. contributions. In my view, such "improvements" do not seriously alter the classical mindset of the social sciences - that, as you rightly say, remain too close (to my taste) to La Mettrie. All in all most of social sciences are physicalist - in the classical and reductionist sense.

I am not familiar with the allegedly best-selling (thus superficial) books of Danah Zohar and her husband Ian Marshall. The point I'm trying to make is this:

In October 2015, AlphaGo, a computer programme developed by the British artificial intelligence company Google DeepMind (https://www.deepmind.com), beat Fan Hui (34), the European Go champion. Five months later, it beat Lee Sedol (33), a South Korean professional Go player of 9-dan rank being second on the list of the world’s top players (behind his compatriot Lee Chang-ho). A great AI achievement!

However, one can be doubtful if man will ever be able to make a machine/robot able to be conscious, to fall in love, to feel guilty, to show compassion, to philosophise like Plato, Kant or Śankara, to mathematise like Archimedes, Évariste Galois or Alexander Grothendieck, to teach like Moses, Confucius or Siddhartha Gautama, to conceptualise a relativity, quantum, evolution or general systems theory, to produce works of art such as Hamlet, The Night Watch, the Taj Mahal, Mozart’s Requiem and Zadkine’s Destroyed City, to design like Cristóbal Balenciaga or Jonathan Ive, to play a musical instrument like Alfred Cortot, Jascha Heifetz, Louis Armstrong, Benny Goodman or Andrés Segovia, to sing like Dietrich Fischer-Diskau or Amália Rodrigues, to dance like Anna Pavlova or Martha Graham, or to play football like Johan Cruijff or Lionel Messi.

In Rethinking Thought: Inside the Minds of Creative Scientists and Artists (OUP, 2016), Laura Otis juxtaposes creative thinkers' insights with recent neuroscientific discoveries. She depicts the unique mental worlds of two award-winning painters, a flamenco dancer, a game designer, a cartoonist, a lawyer-novelist, a theoretical physicist, and a creator of multi-agent software. Treating scientists and artists with equal respect, she creates a dialogue in which neuroscientific findings and the introspections of creative thinkers engage each other as equal partners.

In Humanty in a Creative Universe (OUP, 2016), Stuart Kauffman argues that the current preoccupation with explaining how everything follows physical laws blinds us to the power of creativity. Mind seems to be succumbing to matter, and quality to quantity. Indeed, l’esprit de géométrie is overriding l’esprit de finesse, famous expressions used by Blaise Pascal.

In Neuro: The New Brain Sciences and the Management of the Mind (PUP, 2013), Nikolas Rose and Joelle M. Abi-Rached write: "Whatever the virtues of reductionism as a research strategy, an account of the operation of the living brain ... that does not recognize that human capacities and competences emerge out of, and are possible only within, [the] wider milieu made and remade by living creatures, shaped by history, marked by culture in  ways ranging from the design of space and material objects to the management of action and interaction and organization of time itself, will be scientifically flawed" (page 233).

The hunt for finally being able to unlock the secrets of the human brain and to unveil the mystery of man’s mind is on. So we are back to the perennial problem: to see the particular and the general/universal, the same and the other, the members and the group, the many and the one, the parts and the emergent whole, the dots and the pattern they together form.

Ergo, scientists (natural, social, behavioural, human as well as formal) have still a long way to go.   

Yes they are, dear Hans. Under one proviso (there are a number of threads with similar concerns here on RG): the history of computer and computation is very new one. No more than, say 60 years +/-. And in those roughly 60 years great achievements have been done. What if we allow computation science some, say, more 60 years? Unbelievable achievements will be then reached. The rhythm is not linear, and the progression is certainly not arithmetic.

Dear Carlos,

The fundamental question seems to be whether or not computing, calculating man (conveniently forgetting about the incommensurability of the side and diagonal of a square) can, in principle, make or construct a device that is conscious, falls in love, feels guilty, shows compassion etc (see above). I guess/hypothesise he cannot and, in practice, will never be able.

So I venture to disagree with the basic views of, for example, Pedro  Domingos (The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World, NY: Basic Books, 2015), Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee (The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. NY: W.W.Norton, 2014), and Klaus Schwab (The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What it Means, How to Respond. Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2016).

To tell the truth, the core question does not turn any longer around algorithmic computation, dear Hans. From Turing himself, on to current discussions and studies, the main point has been then on non-algorithmic computation. And  this is a still newer and more recent development. This properly understood pertains computation in and for living beings.

But non-algorithmic computation is still computation, right?

Oops! No way. In computation science we distinguish, f.i. computation in the sense of a Turing Machine. Now, there are a number of TMs. Besides that, we have come to develop computation as non-TM. In the extreme, you can find non-algorithmic computation, or also, biological hyper computation.

A nicer way to put this would be the distinction between the Von Neumann architecture of a computation = that is a vertical, classical architecture (just like your computer and mine), and computation that does not follow the Von Neumann architecture. A good example would be the work with clusters.

Apologize for the analogy: saying that non-algorithmic computation is still (like classical) computation would roughly be the same as saying that democracy is like Greek-ancient democracy, period.

Dear Carlos,

If non-algorithmic computation is not, or has nothing to do with, COMPUTATION (without further qualification), then what is it, really and essentially?

Direct (ancient, or Greek) democracy and representative democracy (parliamentary or presidential), being very different from each other, have certainly something of great importance in common: their rejection of monarchy or autocracy.

Similarly TM-computation and non-TM computation may be significantly different from each other, configurationally or architecturally, they have certainly something of great importance in common: computing, the very thing a human mind (e.g. the mind of Mozart, Kant, Darwin, Einstein, or Gödel) cannot be COMPLETELY reduced to, I'm afraid.

Perhaps we should ask Roger Penrose, John Searle, Gregory Chaitin, Cristian Calude, and David Chalmers for help. 

Dear Hans, I do appreciate your comments, questions and remarks, believe me. I get fresh air from them.

What if, f.i., we shift the point to what you were pointing out earlier on, namely the meaning of quantum computation to enrich our understanding of the world - and, yes: of the social sciences? Can you please help me with that? Thank you.

Dear Carlos,

Unfortunately, I have more questions than answers.

At the age of 77, and educated in the humanities, I am ready to believe that quantum computing (a young branch of computer science that explores the possibility of building computers that make use of quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as superposition and entanglement, to perform operations on data) will enrich our understanding of the world. However, I am less willing to believe that a thorough, proper and full understanding of reality is possible (in principle) or achievable (in practice).  

I think (but I am not sure) that the French theoretical physicist and philosopher of science Bernard d'Espagnat (1921-2015): was right, saying that reality is, and will always remain, veiled.

That, in other words, dear Hans, was what surprised Einstein himself: the puzzle about reality is that it is intelligible. He said that, of course, in the frame of the Copenhagen debate.

Quantum computation is computation, but not in the classical sense, in any way.

I firmly believe that the social sciences (I was educated myself in the humanities, too: philosophy) should by all means be acquainted, to say the least, with quantum, theory. Here, quantum computation, f.i.

Here and there, the way how the state computes information is in terms of a classical deterministic Turing Machine: it splits, it analyses, it stores, it processes information by pieces - by layers, and severely lacks the capacity of integration.

Please allow me to put it straightforwardly: the real problems "out there" cannot be solved by the state. They cannot be solved without the state, but the mindset of the state (call it political regime, etc.) is insufficient for coping with good solutions to the high umber of problems and challenges.

Dear Carlos,

Reality is not intelligible, not really! We are like frogs in wells peering through a stovepipe but unable to see the sea, like ants crawling over the carpet but unable to discern the pattern of it. 

I agree with you: the 'Two Cultures' of C.P. Snow should try to understand each other. If you are interested in my way of thinking, read the paper 'The Scandal of Sinology'. I uploaded the article at academia.edu in January 2015.

Thanks for what I have learned from you.

Dear Hans, I am optimistic: I know: no body is perfect! Even though I am not a formalist, I love remembering D. Hilbert's programme: Wir müssenwissen, wir werden wissen. You know: we must know, we shall know...