Does the brain really "cause" consciousness?

[Magical Realist]

Sarkus, I'm growing weary of your semantic nut and shell game. Observation no longer means observation. Consciousness isn't really consciousness. And well the term physical can just about refer to anything now. I know for a fact that quantum physics attributes the collapse of wavefunctions to conscious acts of observation. Experiments confirm this over and over. Measurements by devices do the same thing. But that does not mean a conscious act of observation is really just a measurement by a device. You said yourself the math supports this.


What seems strange to me is how much you are striving to defend a thesis here based on little more than some dubious experiments by Libet. Apparently based solely on these you feel justified in sweeping aside the massive amount of experiential evidence that we really do mentally cause our own actions. That when I choose to raise my hand for instance I can indeed raise my hand. Apparently you prefer to think that the real reason I moved my hand was some purposeless and sporadic discharge of interneural circuitry. That seems to me silly. Everything we know and assume about our own volition must now go out the window in favor of some purposeless neurological determinism that just so happens to SEEM to be caused mentally but really isn't. That in itself violates Occam's razor. It seems far more contrived and speculative to conclude experiences to be "perfect illusions" than just accepting them as empirically-supported facts.


At this point I wonder who is even arguing your thesis for you? You yourself with your own mind or some purposeless chains of electrochemical events occurring in your brain. I assume the former because that's what all my experience shows me. That I do indeed exist as an autonomous and free causal agent of my own behavior. It also is the sole basis for believing our thoughts, words, and actions are based on reason instead of on chance occurrence. Are you really ready to dispense with reason as the guiding influence on all your conscious actions? Are you really so resigned to ontically joining the ranks of robots, computers and photon detectors in the pursuit of your own epiphenomenal creed?

 

[Syne]

Then it is a poor analogy, as there is a fundamental difference between the two that the analogy fails to recognise.

Again, see the definition of analogy.

As I just explained to Billy T, the physics of probability already allows for inexplicable sequences of events.

Are you now arguing that inexplicable equates to uncaused? The issue at hand is the question of caused or not, not of explicable or not. And how exactly does probability lead to such inexplicable events? I could understand you of you said unlikely, but inexplicable?

How many times do I have to tell you that free will need not be uncaused? I have not argued it was, and I am not suddenly doing so now. Maybe you did not read my reply to Billy:

Say we start flipping a coin and it keeps landing heads up, as in the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard. How many times does it need to land heads up before we decide that this is not happening with probability 1/2? Five? Ten? A thousand? A million?

This question has no good answer. There's no definite point at which we become sure the probability is something other than 1/2. Instead, we gradually become convinced that the probability is higher. It seems ever more likely that something is amiss. But, at any point we could turn out to be wrong. We could have been the victims of an improbable fluke.

Note the words "likely" and "improbable". We're starting to use concepts from probability theory - and yet we are in the middle of trying to define probability! Very odd. Suspiciously circular. -http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html​

Call it unlikely if you wish, but that does not make the cause of uncanny sequences of results any more explicable.

I did not say that it was a conclusion based solely on the quote, only that the quote helped make my point.

And I am saying that your conclusion is a non sequitur with regard the quote. It simply does not follow logically as you have posted it. Now you seem to be admitting that you have missed out your actual argument?
So tell us, how do you go from the quote that says lack of determinism does not equate to lack of causation, to your point that this shows that free will does not need to be uncaused just not deterministically caused?

Again, I never said it followed solely from that quote. If you cannot manage to put several points in a single post together on your own than maybe I was correct in my initial estimation of your bias. If indeterminate causation can have inexplicable sequences of individual results then there is a possibility that this allows for free will.

Yes, he seems to make the same a priori assumptions you do.

so now you admit that there is a real argument being made, even if it is one you don't agree with? Yet you previously stated that you couldn't see one.

Sure, if you count a priori assumptions sufficient. I generally do not.

Ah, science-of-the-gaps. Some future science is always assumed that will inevitably prove everything strictly material. Pie in the sky.

Not at all. It is merely a rational position that you don't posit the existence of something unprovable until you exhaust explanations that can be proven, and that theories that do not involve unprovables are preferable to ones that do. It is not science-of-the-gaps, it is merely science.

So do you actually have a coherent argument to make to support your position, as all you seem to have done thus far is akin to claiming that the US dollar is not the only currency and that this thus proves your economic theory correct.

First, there is no such thing as proof in the hard sciences other than mathematical. A theory can only ever be disproven. Second, there is no imaginable physical explanation for inexplicable sequences of individual indeterministic events. Current science is exhausted. There are no alternative explanations to prefer other than "it just happens", which has no more explanatory power than "god did it". So you are only left with surmising some future science that will fill the gap in what is available from current science.

Now my conclusion is debatable, but these facts are not. Your only real argument here is that you are satisfied with inexplicable phenomena.

 

[Magical Realist]

Billy, I wouldn't rule out "miracles" a priori. Quantum fluctuations are examples of what I call godless miracles. Did you know that in a sufficiently large and old universe it is possible for a toaster to materialize out of thin air? See my thread entitled "Quantum fluctuations and godless miracles."

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus, I'm growing weary of your semantic nut and shell game. Observation no longer means observation. Consciousness isn't really consciousness. And well the term physical can just about refer to anything now. I know for a fact that quantum physics attributes the collapse of wavefunctions to conscious acts of observation. Experiments confirm this over and over. Measurements by devices do the same thing. But that does not mean a conscious act of observation is really just a measurement by a device. You said yourself the math supports this.

If conscious observation includes the mechanism that is required for waveforms to collapse, and other non-conscious devices also include the mechanism, then this logically means that consciousness is not what matters, but rather the mechanism that both consciousness and the non-conscious devices include. It really can not be explained any simpler than that. It is not a matter of semantics but of simple logic.

What seems strange to me is how much you are striving to defend a thesis here based on little more than some dubious experiments by Libet.

I did not raise Libet, and my basis has been explained - that it comes from the fundamental understanding of the lack of anything both uncaused and non-random... And I have detailed why I think that free will requires just such a thing to be considered anything other than illusory.
Given the underlying assumptions, which we have previously discussed, I also have explained and argued why I think consciousness is also merely an illusion.

Apparently based solely on these you feel justified in sweeping aside the massive amount of experiential evidence that we really do mentally cause our own actions. That when I choose to raise my hand for instance I can indeed raise my hand. Apparently you prefer to think that the real reason I moved my hand was some purposeless and sporadic discharge of interneural circuitry. That seems to me silly. Everything we know and assume about our own volition must now go out the window in favor of some purposeless neurological determinism that just so happens to SEEM to be caused mentally but really isn't. That in itself violates Occam's razor. It seems far more contrived and speculative to conclude experiences to be "perfect illusions" than just accepting them as empirically-supported facts.

no, it is not based solely on those experiments, but on the explanations I have previously given.
Secondly, your interpretation of the evidence stops at the level of consciousness, and at no point do you investigate what it is that creates or causes our consciousness. You thus give consciousness a place on a pedestal based purely on your personal incredulity, without examining the underlying causes and interactions that this universe appears, through all evidence, to be based upon.
As for Occam's razor, it isn't a matter of what merely seems more plausible, but on the level of redundancy within a theory, on the number of unknowns... And positing a theory that requires a non-material thing is quite a big unknown, compared to a theory based entirely on the
Physical realm.

At this point I wonder who is even arguing your thesis for you? You yourself with your own mind or some purposeless chains of electrochemical processes occurring in your brain. I assume the former because that's what all my experience shows me. That I do indeed exist as an autonomous and free causal agent of my own behavior. It also is the sole basis for believing our thoughts, words, and actions are based on reason instead of on chance occurrence.

"I" am arguing my thesis, as I have always done. It is just a matter of what we understand the "I" to be. I consider it an illusion... It exists but at an underlying level it is different to what we perceive it to be... But I am just as trapped within this illusion as you are.

Are you really ready to dispense with reason as the guiding influence on all your conscious actions? Are you really so resigned to ontically joining the ranks of robots, computers and photon detectors in the pursuit of your own epiphenomenal creed?

I've already explained why I consider such knee-jerk arguments to be ridiculous, as they merely demonstrate your lack of understanding of the arguments that you think they are countering.
At no point would I dispense with anything. "I" still consider my consciousness, my mind, to be me and to have free will etc. because "I" operate at the same level as consciousness. But beneath that level, as I have argued, for free will to be anything other than an illusion, it needs uncaused and non-random influences, for which there has never been any evidence.

 

[Syne]

BTW probability is a division of mathematics, not physics.

Where have I been talking about probability as it relates to anything but the physical? Would "probability in physics" appease your pedantry?

(1) Logic leads to valid conclusions if the premises are valid. &
(2) Miracles do not occur.

Do you assume these two too or think one is false?

Those are valid assumptions.

I can not be sure from your post what other (if any) a priori assumption that you think Sarkus makes I am making also. Please state it if you think I am making a third (other than these two).

For clarity, it is necessary to define what I mean by "Miracle" - A Miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, which in this day and age are nearly (or exactly?) the same as the man made laws of physics and chemistry, etc. If and when there is a difference between the man made laws of physics and chemistry, etc. and those of nature, then it is possible that man could falsely believe a miracle had occurred.

The bolded would seem to be an unfounded a priori assumption. The history of science has many instances of people thinking it was, or very near, completion. You use this assumption to pass judgment on phenomena we have no explanation for.

By my assumptions (1) & (2), I conclude that the movement of every particle, even just an electron, is following the laws of nature. Thus there is no free will for you, if you are material (a body etc.).

Since we do not have any complete explanation of behavior we perceive to be free, nor any evidence that is compelling either way, it is not reasonable to assume we know the entirety of the laws of nature.

BTW you are not very good at answering direct questions, even if put to you twice. You said in post 90:So for third time, I ask how do QM processes deep in the brain, making Free Will, differ from the "free will" and external coin filp provides (for making binary choices)?

A single quantum event in the brain does not constitute a single choice. Brain activity uses an untold number of such events in a global process to accomplish anything. Now each of these quantum events has the possibility for inexplicable sequences which defy the long-term probability. Accounting for these, in concert with the untold number of similar inexplicable single events, allows for a very wide degree of possible freedom. All completely unexplainable by current science.

 

[Sarkus]

Again, see the definition of analogy. [\quote]I know what an analogy is. My point still stands.

How many times do I have to tell you that free will need not be uncaused? I have not argued it was, and I am not suddenly doing so now. Maybe you did not read my reply to Billy:

You can tell me something as often as you want, but unless you have more than just claims then it will be a short discussion. You have singularly failed to provide any logical support for your claim but instead seem to rely on the number of times you make the claim.
Yes, I read your reply to BillyT, but it doesn't answer anything with regard the issues. Instead you argue red herring after red herring.

Again, I never said it followed solely from that quote. If you cannot manage to put several points in a single post together on your own than maybe I was correct in my initial estimation of your bias. If indeterminate causation can have inexplicable sequences of individual results then there is a possibility that this allows for free will.

And yet another claim with nothing to support it. Or are we again to take just your claim as proof of its veracity?
And if you post a quote and then make a conclusion with reference to nothing else, the implication is that you are reaching your conclusion from the quote alone.

Sure, if you count a priori assumptions sufficient. I generally do not.

You claimed that my definition of free will contained a priori assumptions, yet I happily moved on to your own definition, to which the arguments I made all still apply with equal relevance. Are you claiming that your own definition contains the same a priori assumptions that you accused my definition of containing?

Second, there is no imaginable physical explanation for inexplicable sequences of individual indeterministic events. Current science is exhausted. There are no alternative explanations to prefer other than "it just happens", which has no more explanatory power than "god did it". So you are only left with surmising some future science that will fill the gap in what is available from current science.

Another red herring you're posting I'm afraid as such occurrences, as I've already detailed, fall under the category of random. They still don't allow for free will, as explained by myself and BillyT, yet all you have offered is claims that such randomness can be considered inexplicable. Well, here's a cracker for you: if we could explain them they wouldn't be considered random.

Now my conclusion is debatable, but these facts are not. Your only real argument here is that you are satisfied with inexplicable phenomena.

On the contrary, I am content to say "I don't know" without jumping onto unprovables as an explanation. Secondly, your argument is nothing more than: things happen that are random/inexplicable, QED free will exists. You have provided nothing that actually counters the arguments made, nor provided any argument of your own, other than along the lines of what I have just stated about it.

 

[Magical Realist]

Once again with the nut and shell. Watch it! "Free will" here means free will, as in "I have free will." But NOW it means an illusion, because you predefine freedom as having to be uncaused? Then how does observation cause the entirely random and indeterminate collapse of the wavefunction into one state or the other?

 

[Syne]

I am done here. My initial estimation of the bias involved was accurate, and I should not have bothered.

 

[Billy T]

... Would "probability in physics" appease your pedantry?

Better, but best is probably theory applied to physical cases. Nor is it pedantry as there is no such thing as the "physics of probability." In post 137 you said:
"As I just explained to Billy T, the physics of probability already allows for inexplicable sequences of events.”

In addition to not needing any explaination for facts I learned and understood more than 60 years ago, my point was that there is no such thing as the "physics of probability." Probability is a division of mathematic, like solid geometry or set theory, or trigonometry. Etc. all of which find physical applications, but none of which make any sense to say: Probability of solid geometry or Probability of set theory or Probability of trigonometry. or etc.

... The bolded would seem to be an unfounded a priori assumption.

No, it was and was clearly stated to be a DEFINITION (of Miracle - i.e. a violation of the natural laws).

... The history of science has many instances of people thinking it was, or very near, completion. You use this assumption to pass judgment on phenomena we have no explanation for.

I acknowledged that when man has incomplete understanding of the natural laws, it is possible some observed event would appear to be a miracle. Note that these "false miracles" do require an OBSERVATION of some event which appears to violate the natural laws. Free Will is not an OBSERVATION, - just the way some people believe their choices are made with zero confirmable proof.

Increasing in the last couple of decades, following the pioneering work of Libet, science has shown that decision are often made subconsciously then rationalized with fabricated conscious reasons. Recall my prior post telling about experiment done on "split brain" patients -one whose verbal half of the brain did not see the snow scene but immediately and with full confidence explained why the hand that did see the snow scene chose the toy snow shovel with: "It would be useful for cleaning out the barn." (the verbal side was shown a barn in summer with chickens.) etc. Psychiatrists, at least since Freud, have long operated on the idea that we don´t really consciously know why we do some things - especially self destructive things.

... A single quantum event in the brain does not constitute a single choice. Brain activity uses an untold number of such events in a global process to accomplish anything. Now each of these quantum events has the possibility for inexplicable sequences which defy the long-term probability. Accounting for these, in concert with the untold number of similar inexplicable single events, allows for a very wide degree of possible freedom. All completely unexplainable by current science.

Thanks for answering the question (What is different between free will based on QM event in the brain from "coin flip" free will?) As I understand your answer, you are saying the Free Will choice that comes from the random and unpredictable QM event in the brain is not then followed by a deterministic set of processing step, but that QM event is just one of many random QM events, which collectively make the choice caused but unpredictable.

Thus I will rephrase my question:
OK lets not let one coin flip decides anything but say a pre-set 1000 (or more coin flips) can also be making a "caused but unpredictable choice" by which is more dominate, head or tails. Now the coin flip "free will" is just like your multiple QM events, except one is internal (to the body) and the other is external. Do you really advocate the equivalent of "coin flip" free will, or do you see some fundamental difference still between many QM vs. many coin flips events? Both, I agree can result in your "caused but unpredictable choice" nature of free will.

 

[Sarkus]

Once again with the nut and shell. Watch it! "Free will" here means free will, as in "I have free will." But NOW it means an illusion, because you predefine freedom as having to be uncaused?

No, I do not define freedom as having to be uncaused. It is my conclusion, based on the arguments presented, that in order for free will to be anything other than illusion then there must be uncaused but non-random events. This is not a definition but a conclusion from the arguments.
It is compatible with my sense of free will because, as stated, the "I" that experiences the illusion of free will is itself of the same category of illusion, and as such sees it as real.

Then how does observation cause the entirely random and indeterminate collapse of the wavefunction into one state or the other?

No idea. Not sure anyone has come up with an entirely satisfactory explanation, at least not philosophically. No one is even sure where it happens in a given chain of events. Mathematics seems to give the best answer, but how useful even that is at a practical level is I don't know.

 

[Sarkus]

I am done here. My initial estimation of the bias involved was accurate, and I should not have bothered.

I am merely biased against what I consider to be irrational.
If you think not jumping on the unprovable as an explanation, in favour of theories that are entirely within the remit of what is possibly provable (even if not yet so), is demonstration of bias then sure, I'm as guilty of it as anyone who expresses and can justify preferences.

 

[Billy T]

I am done here. ...

Actually, I am sort of glad if you have stopped posting ideas with no defending evidence and countering evidence against your ideas with detours and red herrings BECUASE now perhaps Sarkus who, is well informed and logical, will have time to read my long essay showing Free Will need not violate the laws of nature as I thought to be the case for many years. I would very much like to hear what he thinks of my RTS idea.

Sarkus - For your convenience here is a link to post 75: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...onsciousness&p=3027447&viewfull=1#post3027447
with other links on the RTS, but just read the last one, if pressed for time. There are many many more links to supporting evidence like the first two you find in post 75.

If you just want to read the "long essay" on the RTS & free will go here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?2868-About-determinism&p=882356&viewfull=1#post882356

 

[Billy T]

Magical Realist asked:
"Then how does observation cause the entirely random and indeterminate collapse of the wavefunction into one state or the other?" and you replied:

... No idea. Not sure anyone has come up with an entirely satisfactory explanation, at least not philosophically. No one is even sure where it happens in a given chain of events. Mathematics seems to give the best answer, but how useful even that is at a practical level is I don't know.

The answer is simple: Every observation / measuremtn requires an interaction of the mixed state QM wave function with a macro system. Macro systems can not exist in "mixed states" so only one result is possible for the observation or measurement. Many falsely think ONLY observations and measurement cause the wave function to "collapse" into a pure or "Eigen" state.

That is false. Cosmic rays hitting a dense nucleus on the surface of the a million years ago did briefly produce high energy mixed state wave function that sometimes collapse to create 3 electron/ positon pairs and at other times collapsed into an Eigen state with only 2 elecron/ postron pairs etc. No observations or measurments were made. All that is required to cause the mixed QM state to "collapse" is for it to interact with a macro system. For example, Schrodener´s cat is either dead or alive before you open the box to look. That was his badly misunderstood point.

 

[Magical Realist]

Magical Realist asked:
"Then how does observation cause the entirely random and indeterminate collapse of the wavefunction into one state or the other?" and you replied:The answer is simple: Every observation / measuremtn requires an interaction of the mixed state QM wave function with a macro system. Macro systems can not exist in "mixed states" so only one reslut is possible for the observation or measurement. Many falsely think ONLY obersvations and measurement cause the wave function to "collapse" into a pure or "Eigen" state.



That is false. Cosmic rays hitting a dense nucleus on the surface of the a million years ago did briefly produce high energy mixed state wave function that sometimes collapse to create 3 electron/ positon pairs and at other times collapsed into an Eigen state with only 2 elecron/ postron pairs etc. No observations or measurments were made. All that is required to cause the mixed QM state to "collapse" is for it to interact with a macro system. For example, Schrodener´s cat is either dead or alive before you open the box to look. That was his badly misunderstood point.

How is just observing something interacting with it? The photons are certainly hitting our eyes yes. But how is the observer physically influencing the state just by looking at it? There's something in observation itself that just mathematically entails the collapse of the wavefunction. I'm not so sure this can reduced to the physical effects of some blanket-term like "interaction." Nothing passes between the event of measurement/observation and the wavefunction. IOW, it isn't physical. It's statistical. It's like entanglement, in which collapsing the wavefunction of a particle instantaneously entails the collapse of the wavefunction of it's entangled twin.

 

[wellwisher]

A creative person is used to discovering new relationships that they may never have read about anywhere. Creativity is not planned or predetermined. This is different from basing all your ideas and knowledge on what you read or hear. The latter is determinate, since it simply repeats what was learned. The former is indeterminant, since there is no prescribed path or result. It only appears prescribed, after the fact.

An interesting affect connected to creativity, if you create something new, that is different, many people will defend the exsting dogma in an attempt to force you back into group determinism. This has an impact in that it can create its own group reality perception.

I generate a lot of theories and scenarios since I am not fully under determinism, unless I want to be. Sometimes I will repeat what I learned. I can even override the bias of my own previous theories. I don't let the external peer pressure force conformity to the latest group determinism.

If you have the free will to be indeterminant, you can observe how it works inside your own mind. Outside you won't see this data. This approach is less common because the deterministic rules prefer outside observation.

 

[Sarkus]

Magical Realist asked:
"Then how does observation cause the entirely random and indeterminate collapse of the wavefunction into one state or the other?" and you replied:
...
The answer is simple: Every observation / measuremtn requires an interaction of the mixed state QM wave function with a macro system. Macro systems can not exist in "mixed states" so only one result is possible for the observation or measurement. Many falsely think ONLY observations and measurement cause the wave function to "collapse" into a pure or "Eigen" state.

Sure - the maths describes it beautifully - but my understanding is that noone is quite clear of the practical mechanism of the collapse (other than that described by the maths), and thus nor of the actual position/location/timing of the event within the causal chain.

 

[Billy T]

How is just observing something interacting with it? The photons are certainly hitting our eyes yes. But how is the observer physically influencing the state just by looking at it?

It is not the "looking at it."We live in a macro world and never experience directly some of the strange things of the QM world. Photons are a good example to speak of: EACH photon in some sense goes by all possible paths. At the "half silvered "beam splitter" of a two path interferometer, it is not that 50% of the time the photon has a 50% probably of traveling "path A." It goes by both paths, A & B even if they are meters separated! This can be shown along with the fact that each photon ONLY interfers with its self, by using long esposure and very weak light sources so that most of the time not even one photon exists. - The photograph film will still show the interference pattern. (Same is true of the two slit interference pattern - every photon "goes thru" both slits.)

On the other hand an understanding of either the "photo-electric effect" or the details of the changes in the crystals of the photographic film that allow it to hold a "Latent Image" until developed shows that when the photo dies, it gives up all it energy in one very small spot (much smaller than the finest grain size (highest resolution) films. (I don´t want to go into details but actually two differnt photons must hit the same tiny fraction of the film crystal to form a stable latent image.)*

There is no way humans with their limited direct macro world experiences can really understand these two facts: SINGLE photons are highly localized in ALL interactions with mater and yet are (or can be) meters apart when traving without absorption.

.... Nothing passes between the event of measurement/observation and the wavefunction. IOW, it isn't physical. It's statistical. It's like entanglement, in which collapsing the wavefunction of a particle instantaneously entails the collapse of the wavefunction of it's entangled twin.

I agree nothing passes between observation and the wave function, but when the wave function is in the space of an atom it interacts with, it is distrubed (it evolves) in such a way that in can no longer be a mix of different Eigen functions. In populare terms, the wave funcion collapses (to one pure state).

There is only one wave funtion for two "entangled particel" and it can extend over many km of real 3D space. Its collapse from a mixed state, say of zero spin or momentum, will not allow the particles when discribed separately, by more localized wave, functions, can not violate the conservation laws. I.e if one particle is then (after the collapse) in a pure spin up state, and the other is with spin down. This too is hard for humans to relate to and some think information must be sent faster than the speed of light to produce thai effect, but no - they were both "in the same mixed state wave function" prior to collapse all along and its spin was zero."


Sarkus said:
"my understanding is that noone is quite clear of the practical mechanism of the collapse (other than that described by the maths), and thus nor of the actual position/location/timing of the event within the causal chain."

and that is correct and always will be if the uncertainity principle has no exceptions. Even it it does, Human will never have anything but the math description - never a "mechanist understanding" of how the collapse takes place. The QM world does not have any "mechanism" humans can understand as I illustrated with the photons facts above.

* That is why the "reciprocity law" fails with very weak light and long exposures - the effect of the first photon on the crystal may relax away before the second one hits, so it will take longer exposures than predicted by the reciprocity law when the light is very dim.

 

[Magical Realist]

I see..So observing is not "looking at". You sound like you have the same special dictionary Sarkus has. Where can I get a copy?

 

[Magical Realist]

"Consciousness causes collapse"

In his 1932 book The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann argued that the mathematics of quantum mechanics allows for the collapse of the wave function to be placed at any position in the causal chain from the measurement device to the "subjective perception" of the human observer – the notion of such a chain, more specifically a chain of interacting systems in which the values of one system is correlated with that of the immediately following system, has since become known as the von Neumann chain. In 1939, F. London and E. Bauer argued for the latter boundary (consciousness).[29] In the 1960s, Eugene Wigner reformulated the "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment as "Wigner's friend" and proposed that the consciousness of an observer is the demarcation line which precipitates collapse of the wave function, independent of any realist interpretation. See Consciousness and measurement. Very technically, Wigner identified the non-linear probabilistic projection transformation which occurs during measurement with the selection of a definite state by a mind from the different possibilities which it could have in a quantum mechanical superposition. Thus, the non-physical mind is postulated to be the only true measurement apparatus.[16] This interpretation has been summarized thus:


The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which perform measurements on the brain causing wave function collapse.[16]

Henry Stapp has argued for the concept as follows:


From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe... Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device... Our bodies and brains thus become...parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unifed way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation...[30]----http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind-body_problem

 

[Sarkus]

Yep, von Neumann certainly did hold to the idea that it requires consciousness to collapse a wave function.
But the predominant modern theories of QM do not. Theories get updated and refined with each new generation.
Von Neumann argued that the collapse must happen at some location between the object being measured and our brain... And more specifically the parts of our brain that give rise to consciousness (I am not aware he held to the idea of a non-material consciousness). He believed the demarcation line was a the point of consciousness. Even Wigner, a key proponent of the idea, changed his mind later on and considered the demarcation line to be more likely the visual cortex, or even the retina etc - I.e. a measuring device.

Just do some more reading and investigation on the subject of whether consciousness is required for collapse, but be sure to also look at those who don't think so, so as to get a more rounded picture.