Lecture: Quantum Mind and Social Science | Alexander Wendt

9 thoughts on “Lecture: Quantum Mind and Social Science | Alexander Wendt”

1. I tend to agree this is on the right track to a deeper understanding of many different things but at the end you say "its too elegant not to be true" and that immediately reminded me of string theory. Its always a good idea to be conscious of our bias…

2. Every premise begins with "what if" and "maybe". None of these conclusions are meaningful without evidence.

3. Just because there is some coherence in some protein in the brain (there is coherence in your fucking table right now) doesn't corroborate the claim that we are walking wavefunctions. This is crazy, and among the other things someone sit this guy down and teach him field theory please!!

4. The Wave Function is rather spiritual (energy) and when observed or obtains stimulation the field vibrations localize and the force field interacts with sensors of various things to include humans and their touch then seems to be material.

5. We don't need social scientists going into the natural sciences in bulldozers (preconceived constructist and other blank slate political agendas). What we need are natural scientists going into political science and formulating reasonable hypotheses based on first principles that can be demonstrated. Why does Alexander Wendt put so much emphasis on Quantum Consciousness (a speculative field) being taken up in social science when neurobiology can offer so many insights into human behaviour already (such as the work of Robert Sapolsky)? Why is neuroscience not taken up in social science already??!!….. well but, of course, the social sciences can't tolerate biology so they must jump right past it into quantum physics… much like "The Secret" and the new age movement… Constructivists need to accept that people's behaviour is based partly on biological mechanisms – primates and the average human are not so different. Primatology, neuroscience and biochemistry has more to offer the social sciences in terms of explanations of human behaviour than Quantum theory

6. Typical constructivists trying to deny any basis to human nature (blank slate) – interesting how he fails to discuss any aspect of neuroscience that relates to neurotransmitters. For example, preference reversal can be explained by changes in levels of brain chemistry like dopamine or oxytocin. Such reversals have been demonstrated before and after say an oxytocin nasal spray used in an experiment setting. There really is no need for quantum events to explain complex aspects of human behaviour like preference reversals. Even where quantum events have been shown to be involved in say a Robin's understanding of where it is geographically via the Earth's electromagnetic field this does not mean the Robin is a quantum being as a totality. What it means is a part of the variance of its behaviour is related to quantum level events – it does not mean the Robin is a coherent quantum wave… So even if there is some quantum aspect to the human mind it will likely be minor even if it has an effect (as Michio Kaku suggests). So if we want to explain human behaviour it seems that the variance of mind/brain needs biological understanding more than quantum events. It is such an extreme overgeneralization to say the human mind is built on a quantum wave. Also currently there is no evidence for Roger Penrose's conception of microtubules and quantum tunneling as the basis for consciousness etc.

7. is there any evidence of this at the neuronal level? no. theres a lot of evidence against it.

8. Great stuff. Wendt never fails to disappoint.

9. This is pseudoscience. de Broglie wavelength disproves this entire argument.

Comments are closed.