Yes, it certainly is speculative; I try to have fun with exploring these possible themes while not getting too attached to any ideas, should the ideas prove to be false.
Actually the finding that there isn't a single "center of first-person qualitative experience" or what Daniel Dennett calls a "Cartesian theater" seems to me to lend itself in support of quantum consciousness. Dennett spent his entire very long book Consciousness Explained attempting to lay out an alternative explanation. He had many excellent points but I got the sense that even he did not seem to be 100% satisfied with having laid the "Cartesian theater" to rest.
It also seems to me that he could not address the fundamental problem with trying to disprove the idea of a Carteian theater -- why it seems such an intuitive and attractive explanation for qualitative experience.
The idea of consciousness as quantum superposition of registers is attractive because it does not depend on finding a "qualia center" in the brain. As for other aspects of what we call consciousness, I am aware for example that there is a volition center in the prefrontal cortex, that the "stream of verbal consciousness" that many of us experience is caused by firing in the linguistic portions of the brain, and so on. The emerging idea of thoughts evolving in the brain using a Darwinistic "pandemonium" process also has a lot to commend it.
But at the core, from everything I've read neuroscience is far from explaining what causes qualitative experience (the stuff philosophers refer to as "qualia") or demonstrating why it is a delusion.
In the meantime, I see it as an interesting and healthy diversion to speculate on the metaphysical aspects of an idea that has a certain kind of elegance to me -- even if it is highly speculative.
no subject
Actually the finding that there isn't a single "center of first-person qualitative experience" or what Daniel Dennett calls a "Cartesian theater" seems to me to lend itself in support of quantum consciousness. Dennett spent his entire very long book Consciousness Explained attempting to lay out an alternative explanation. He had many excellent points but I got the sense that even he did not seem to be 100% satisfied with having laid the "Cartesian theater" to rest.
It also seems to me that he could not address the fundamental problem with trying to disprove the idea of a Carteian theater -- why it seems such an intuitive and attractive explanation for qualitative experience.
The idea of consciousness as quantum superposition of registers is attractive because it does not depend on finding a "qualia center" in the brain. As for other aspects of what we call consciousness, I am aware for example that there is a volition center in the prefrontal cortex, that the "stream of verbal consciousness" that many of us experience is caused by firing in the linguistic portions of the brain, and so on. The emerging idea of thoughts evolving in the brain using a Darwinistic "pandemonium" process also has a lot to commend it.
But at the core, from everything I've read neuroscience is far from explaining what causes qualitative experience (the stuff philosophers refer to as "qualia") or demonstrating why it is a delusion.
In the meantime, I see it as an interesting and healthy diversion to speculate on the metaphysical aspects of an idea that has a certain kind of elegance to me -- even if it is highly speculative.