yes. that is one major aspect of consciousness .

< I think it's an intractable 'problem' for the scientific method. Thus I am open to the idea that 'experience'/ 'self-awareness' is a fundamental property of the Universe, just like the article from Australia suggests>

yes.

<Where in the above processes do quantum effects enter? >

Here's a supersicrit unfinished document:

Game Collection: Spielmann: Last Knight of the King's Gambit

Among other things, it's meant to be a shortlist of games suitable for a documentary on <Rudolf Spielmann>.

electrons act as waves - show diffraction pattern of waves when passed through a 'hole' (diffraction rings)

to explain this and other such phenomena that can not be explained using classical physics, quantum theory was forwarded. according to this theory, every particle has a wave function associated with it .

now there are 2 ways to study quantum physics - pragmatist approach and realist approach.

Realist approach - pragamtist physics is subset of realist physics.

quantum theory's great success in explaining the quantum facts and 'unprecedented' predictive power may suggest that it makes contact with some real features of the physical world.

once one starts from the premise that wave function is real, then the next question is - where/when does this wave function collapse? where/when does wave function become particle? (electron was a wave function; when where it collapsed to become a particle?)

mathematician Von Neumann studied this question meticulously and concluded that logically, human consciousness is the only possible site for wave function collapse.

<in a process of consciousness by which a physical signal of brain becomes an experience in human mind/consciousness>

if consciousness were not there , electron wave function would never collapse; it would exist as a superposition of all the possibilities but no possibility would ever materialize. it would never become matter.

The simplest to understand is Bohr's interpretation. However, to 'fit' it into reality, as you say consciousness has to enter, as Von Neumann believed. A self-aware consciousness has to collapse the wave functions of all small particles in order to make them into real particles.

This leads to interesting philosophical questions. One is that how can a past exist that contained no conscious entities that can collapse the wave functions of wave-particles therein into 'real' particles. Logically if we follow this line of reasoning, the past can only exist because we in the present are looking at it. The Big Bang can exist only because we or other conscious observers in its future observe the electromagnetic radiation from it.

<This leads to interesting philosophical questions. One is that how can a past exist that contained no conscious entities that can collapse the wave functions of wave-particles therein into 'real' particles.>

so, at the core 'everything' is not matter/energy/wave but consciousness.

does that make sense ?

in other words, the question is : is consciousness an emergent property of universe?

if it is then we have those kind of questions that you asking ,

<visayanbraindoctor>. <who looks at us to collapse our waves into particles? This is the dilemma of Schrodinger's cat and Wigner's friend. Someone conscious has to look at the cat in the box to make it real. >

but if consciousness is not the emergent property of universe but in fact it is consciousness which created the universe then these questions are answered .

then consciousness does not need a body to exist . it is not localized in brain or anywhere else in universe. it is all consciouness. it is everywhere.

If you transmit a wave (such as light, which is an electromagnetic wave) through a cardboard with two slits, an interference pattern results on the screen behind it. The two resulting waves at the back of the cardboard interfere with each other to produce this classic pattern. The stunner is what happens when one decreases the light intensity to one photon at a time separated in time. Like you beam one photon at a time through the cardboard every hour for several months.

Now if you were to do this with a classic particle such as a bullet, you would only get an equal pile of bullets behind each slit. However, small objects such as photons (light particles) do have wave properties. The stunner is that even if you shoot one photon at a time separated by one hour intervals, you still get an interference pattern. It is as though the photons are communicating to each other through time in order to tell each other to land just so on the screen as to create an interference pattern.

That's just the stunner. Here comes the shocker. If you determine the path of (in effect 'look' at) each photon in flight, say by blocking one of the slits just before a photon goes through, the interference pattern disappears; and you just get a 'pile' of photons behind each slit as though they were like little bullets. It is as though your conscious 'look' at the photon collapses its probability wave so that it acts exactly like a real particle.

yes. in 1980 , i think there were about 8 interpretations (one among them being a neo-realist model which was inspired by einstein's intuition that the attributes are static -"god does not play dice with universe")

yes, i know this experiment.

<Dr. Deepak chopra, M.D, says so in his recent article

<"If you canvassed a hundred neuroscientists about where the mind comes from, it would be a good bet that 99 would say the brain ..... >

I thought so too, until a patient told me that when his body was unconscious, he himself was floating outside his body looking at the accident scene.

If he (and others) were not hallucinating, such phenomenon cannot be explained by assuming that self-awareness is an emergent phenomenon from neurons firing.

However aside from such out of body experiences (which many would claim are hallucinations), there remains the ability of our 'mind' to experience self-awareness and subjectivity. By its definition subjectivity cannot be tested by an objective experiment; yet all of us know that we are subjectively self-aware. I think it's an intractable 'problem' for the scientific method. Thus I am open to the idea that 'experience'/ 'self-awareness' is a fundamental property of the Universe, just like the article from Australia suggests, and likens it to mass. >

<visayanbraindoctor>, in light of this post of yours , i am curious : what is the process you following to get the answers. ( i sure have a good idea by know by reading your posts like the one i quoted here and also reading your posts which show your interest in intriguing quantum facts. <what i am curious to learn is how motivated/passionate you are to unravel the 'mystery' , ; to find the answers. and what are the deatails of the process you are following ; if you are following some process in a disciplined , planned way or it is just 'random'...>)

An interesting fact: Just as most physicists do not actively question how quantum mechanics is interpreted, as long as it works; most Neurologists and Neurosurgeons do not meditate on how subjective self-awareness is generated as long as they can localize where in the Central Nervous System a lesion is located based on the signs a patient exhibits. For instance, if a patient exhibits a decrease in sensorium (disoriented, unable to localize painful stimuli and open eyes), aha... something might be wrong with his thalamus, midbrain, or upper pons! What can be impinging on them? Hemorrhage? Tumor? Uncal herniation? Maybe there's an infarct there? Perhaps just plain alcoholic intoxication? No one really talks about if the patient still is subjectively self-aware.

and now , i see them gone.

in the same context, here is something of which you perhaps are already aware:

<Tammet's memory, mathematical and linguistic abilities have been studied by some of the world's leading neuroscientists at California's Center for Brain Studies and the UK's Cambridge Autism Research Centre [12] and have been the subject of several peer-reviewed scientific papers.[13] Professor Allan Snyder at the Australian National University has said of Tammet: "Savants can't usually tell us how they do what they do. It just comes to them. Daniel can describe what he sees in his head. That's why he's exciting. He could be the 'Rosetta Stone'."[9]

Tammet's unusually vivid and complex synesthesia has been widely reported. In his mind, he says, each positive integer up to 10,000 has its own unique shape, colour, texture and feel. He can intuitively "see" results of calculations as synaesthetic landscapes without using conscious mental effort and can "sense" whether a number is prime or composite. >

mind is not in brain. in fact it is mind that uses brain. (a rough analogy : radio/tv catches the waves and convert them in pictures sounds but it is not tv/radio that created those waves). individual mind can connect to uniseral mind. universal mind has all the knowledge. 'idiot savant' are , through some miracle, able to connect to some part of that universal mind. and access some specific skill without having to learn that skill or needing some effort to use that skill

<quantum.conscious: mind is not in brain. in fact it is mind that uses brain. (a rough analogy : radio/tv catches the waves and convert them in pictures sounds but it is not tv/radio that created those waves).>

Fascinating! I will keep this in mind.

<however, mathematically ,i don't know quantum physics very well as of now. but i intend to learn that in future >