Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 135

Thread: Consciousness (Part 2)

  1. #1 Consciousness (Part 2) 
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,301
    I started this new thread as a continuation of the other thread because the forum seems to be having a problem with long threads.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    If there is something that we can never know about or which there is no evidence of, then in what way does this something actually exist?
    The issue I see with this is that the only thing we can have direct knowledge of are objects of the mind. This specifically also includes the entirety of our knowledge about the “external” world, because all we can be conscious of are percepts, i.e. the end results of a complicated process of preception, which depends on a very large number of factors. Not only do we not have direct access to anything apart from what the mind presents us, we do not even have direct access to the raw data generated by our own sensory apparatus. We can, from what we are conscious of, infer characteristics of the external world, and build a mental model out of this as well as a social consensus we arrive at with other minds; but that isn’t direct knowledge of the world, it’s just a mental fabrication, which may or may not serve as a good model, since the reality we perceive is heavily conditioned by many external and internal factors.
    I understand and accept that our entire perception of reality is a mental construct, that this mental construct need not correspond to the true reality, and that there is no way to compare the mental construct with the true reality. Even if we use scientific instruments to measure the true reality, ultimately the scientific instruments are themselves mental constructs measuring the mental constructs that we regard as reality, and any readouts produced by the scientific instruments are themselves perceptions that are mental constructs.

    It is worth noting that much of physics isn't perceived but is an intellectual construct. For example, we don't see an electromagnetic field, but we may use a diagrammatic or mathematical representation of it. And for more advanced notions, mathematical representations are all there is. So the question of whether mental constructs correspond to the true reality doesn't really apply when the true reality is being represented mathematically (even if the mathematics is itself a mental construct).

    It is one thing to question whether the mental constructs correspond to the true reality, but it is another thing to questions whether there even exists a true reality beyond the mental constructs. However, it seems to me that there has to be a reality external to the mental construct in order to house the mental construct. Otherwise, in what way is the mental construct a mental construct and not reality itself? Also, I am rather impressed by the richness and consistency of what seems to be true reality, a richness and consistency that seems to exceed my own mental abilities.


    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    If there is something that we can never know about or which there is no evidence of, then in what way does this something actually exist?
    The issue I see with this is that the only thing we can have direct knowledge of are objects of the mind. This specifically also includes the entirety of our knowledge about the “external” world, because all we can be conscious of are percepts, i.e. the end results of a complicated process of preception, which depends on a very large number of factors. Not only do we not have direct access to anything apart from what the mind presents us, we do not even have direct access to the raw data generated by our own sensory apparatus. We can, from what we are conscious of, infer characteristics of the external world, and build a mental model out of this as well as a social consensus we arrive at with other minds; but that isn’t direct knowledge of the world, it’s just a mental fabrication, which may or may not serve as a good model, since the reality we perceive is heavily conditioned by many external and internal factors.
    What would constitute direct knowledge? If there is such a thing, would it enable us to procure better data and build more practical models? What exactly do we mean by “truly reflects the external world” when it comes to building, say, mathematical models? The diminutive “just a mental fabrication” will always be the case, but isn’t a good model just one that works? If it does, then would the extent to which our percepts are conditioned in that particular case even matter?

    I’m not sure the above has anything to do with KJW’s stance. It is the evidence of which we can avail ourselves that enables us to build models. Our perspective may provide us with a blinkered view of something in the world, but any evidence is an effect produced by something that exists; if that something never exists, the effect (evidence) can never be there to be detected—hence the distinction between with or without.

    Then again, perhaps I've just misunderstood both your and KJW's posts.


    Last edited by Vexspits; February 25th, 2018 at 06:11 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Otherwise, in what way is the mental construct a mental construct and not reality itself?
    Yes, now that is the million dollar question, isn’t it

    But just to clarify what I was actually getting at - I do not try to negate the existence of things outside the mental realm (whether those exist or not is an interesting conundrum though), rather, I think it is a mistake to completely ignore the subjective realm when trying to understand how the universe works. Personally I think that “reality” is not an absolute, objective thing, but something that is meaningful only in relation to an observer. Hence, to describe reality it would seem necessary to me to make reference to how it is being observed. I have already alluded to an example earlier on - the KJW-object in my field of perception, is it “real” or is it not? If it is real, can it be uniquely reduced to something material, in a manner consistent with the scientific method? If not, does that change its ontological status?

    Anyway, my point is simply that we need to stop ignoring the subjective realm of experience, when trying to describe what “reality” is. It would seem to me that the vast majority of scientists assume that subjective experience can somehow be reduced to something physical and material, but to me this is merely conjecture, for which there is no real evidence. There is also no evidence to the contrary, so I am advocating that we need to keep an open mind on this, and at least consider the possibility that experience/awareness/consciousness itself may be an irreducible and fundamental feature of the universe, in which case even elementary particles would exhibit a rundimentary form of it. After all, how meaningful is it to speak of “the real, definite value of the property of a particle”, unless it is in relation to some observer, e.g. another particle? Seen in this way, “experience” ultimately boils down to entanglement relationships, and something as high level as human consciousness is then just a very complex nested multi-scale hierarchy of entanglement relationships - from the lowest level of elementary particles (quantum entanglement), right up to the dynamic coherence patterns of the global brain (generalised entanglement). Entanglement itself as a concept though is neither matter nor mind, but information. Perhaps this is how the two seemingly so disparate realms can be brought together: by looking at the extra information that is required to describe the correlations between things.

    This is all just conjecture of course. But an interesting subject to ponder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Otherwise, in what way is the mental construct a mental construct and not reality itself?
    Yes, now that is the million dollar question, isn’t it

    But just to clarify what I was actually getting at - I do not try to negate the existence of things outside the mental realm (whether those exist or not is an interesting conundrum though), rather, I think it is a mistake to completely ignore the subjective realm when trying to understand how the universe works. Personally I think that “reality” is not an absolute, objective thing, but something that is meaningful only in relation to an observer. Hence, to describe reality it would seem necessary to me to make reference to how it is being observed. I have already alluded to an example earlier on - the KJW-object in my field of perception, is it “real” or is it not? If it is real, can it be uniquely reduced to something material, in a manner consistent with the scientific method? If not, does that change its ontological status?

    Anyway, my point is simply that we need to stop ignoring the subjective realm of experience, when trying to describe what “reality” is. It would seem to me that the vast majority of scientists assume that subjective experience can somehow be reduced to something physical and material, but to me this is merely conjecture, for which there is no real evidence. There is also no evidence to the contrary, so I am advocating that we need to keep an open mind on this, and at least consider the possibility that experience/awareness/consciousness itself may be an irreducible and fundamental feature of the universe, in which case even elementary particles would exhibit a rundimentary form of it. After all, how meaningful is it to speak of “the real, definite value of the property of a particle”, unless it is in relation to some observer, e.g. another particle? Seen in this way, “experience” ultimately boils down to entanglement relationships, and something as high level as human consciousness is then just a very complex nested multi-scale hierarchy of entanglement relationships - from the lowest level of elementary particles (quantum entanglement), right up to the dynamic coherence patterns of the global brain (generalised entanglement). Entanglement itself as a concept though is neither matter nor mind, but information. Perhaps this is how the two seemingly so disparate realms can be brought together: by looking at the extra information that is required to describe the correlations between things.

    This is all just conjecture of course. But an interesting subject to ponder.
    Yes!!! Truth is, that objective reality is absolutely virtual. Physical reality is totally subjective and relative. People can agree or disagree about things, which they observe. Universe looks, as it looks only FOR YOU! Each observer gets different impressions of the reality and this is possible due to the superposition of subatomic particles. It's the Concious Mind, which causes the wave function to collapse. Without observer, there's no observation and reality remains in a potential state - a possibility of physical existence. Universe exists individually for each one of us - concious life beings.

    And Yes - it's all about the endless process of information exchange... This is the key to understanding... My adventure with physics began from realising, that everything is based on information. Our brains generate the image of objective and non-physical reality, according to the information, received from environment. It's the virtual information, which is actually objective, while physical reality renders itself in our minds...

    Using an analogy - when we use a computer, we see the image of a "reality", displayed on a screen - but this image is just the effect of electric charges, which are processed in the central unit, as a binary code. Different computers can render different images of the same code, depending on their specifications. It's just like a bat and an owl, which perceive the same objective and non-physical reality in totally different ways, due to different kinds of perception - and their observations are equally correct. You can't say, that bat experiences "incorrect reality", because it doesn't see the light...

    Somehow, I knew from the beginning, that you are very close to the Truth.
    And in the end, there's only One Truth: Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am That I Am...
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; February 26th, 2018 at 11:14 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    I understand and accept that our entire perception of reality is a mental construct, that this mental construct need not correspond to the true reality, and that there is no way to compare the mental construct with the true reality. Even if we use scientific instruments to measure the true reality, ultimately the scientific instruments are themselves mental constructs measuring the mental constructs that we regard as reality, and any readouts produced by the scientific instruments are themselves perceptions that are mental constructs.

    It is worth noting that much of physics isn't perceived but is an intellectual construct. For example, we don't see an electromagnetic field, but we may use a diagrammatic or mathematical representation of it. And for more advanced notions, mathematical representations are all there is. So the question of whether mental constructs correspond to the true reality doesn't really apply when the true reality is being represented mathematically (even if the mathematics is itself a mental construct).

    It is one thing to question whether the mental constructs correspond to the true reality, but it is another thing to questions whether there even exists a true reality beyond the mental constructs. However, it seems to me that there has to be a reality external to the mental construct in order to house the mental construct. Otherwise, in what way is the mental construct a mental construct and not reality itself? Also, I am rather impressed by the richness and consistency of what seems to be true reality, a richness and consistency that seems to exceed my own mental abilities.
    I'm surprised, that a professional physicist, who believe mostly in the superiority of mathematical formulas, can also participate in a discussion about totally metaphysical subject. I'm actually impressed, as Conciousness is rather a kind of taboo in physics - there's simply no way, to define some laws of physics, which would describe Conciousness with all it's aspects, like emotions, desires or subjective impressions.

    I absolutely believe in physics (although I disagree with the mainstream science in some aspects). Physics proves, that there's no such thing, as "coincidence" in physical reality. Each natural process is determined by it's cause/effect relation. Every physical phenomenon can be predicted and explained with numbers. However there's a single factor, which is a total variable - it's the Free Will of a Concious Mind. This is why 90% of scientists don't believe in such thing, as Free Will and make everything to prove, that our behavior is already determined in 100%

    Problem is, that QM proves clearly, that future is completely undetermined and that the simple act of observation, has a direct influence on the "reality", in which we exist. Future exists as superposition of all possible outcomes, but it doesn't exist physically, until it won't happen. QM contradicts completely the idea of time, as a determined and linear dimension. Electron doesn't have any specific location, until it won't be measured - so how it can be determined by the future time? This is where physics meets metaphysics and this is something, what most physicists simply can't accept...

    But it gets even worse... If you are not afraid to think about it for a while, you might come to a very "unpleasant" conclusion: your own Conciousness is the most objective form of existence, there is... Entire Universe can be just your dream - but it's still YOUR dream... They knew it already in ancient Greece - the cradle of modern science. Cogito Ergo Sum is the first objective statement, which you make, if you want to describe the physical existence. Your own awareness is the only thing, about which you can be sure... And there's no math, which would describe it...

    I wonder, if a physicist, like you, will be able to deal with this
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Physics proves, that there's no such thing, as "coincidence" in physical reality.
    No it doesn't.

    Every physical phenomenon can be predicted and explained with numbers.
    Oh, wait...
    Problem is, that QM proves clearly, that future is completely undetermined
    Make your mind up...

    and that the simple act of observation, has a direct influence on the "reality", in which we exist.
    This is not exactly accurate.

    However there's a single factor, which is a total variable - it's the Free Will of a Concious Mind.
    This is an assumption. (If you contend that it's not please show how you arrive at this conclusion).

    They knew it already in ancient Greece
    Then why is the famous phrase that you quote - Cogito Ergo Sum - ascribed to Descartes (17th century - about 2-3,000 years after Ancient Greece)?

    It's the Concious Mind, which causes the wave function to collapse.
    No.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    It's the Concious Mind, which causes the wave function to collapse. Without observer, there's no observation
    An “observer” in the context of physics does not need to be conscious mind; it’s a much more general concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    doubled post :/
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Originally Posted byAstralTravelerPhysics proves, that there's no such thing, as "coincidence" in physical reality.



    No it doesn't.

    Well, the entire concept of laws of physics exists, to find order and logic in the nature. Physics was invented to describe and understand all the natural phenomenons, which we can observe in Universe. If you have enough information, you can predict and explain every natural process, which takes place in the physical "reality".

    Problem is, that QM proves clearly, that future is completely undetermined


    Make your mind up...
    Ok, I admit, that I went here too far. Future is partially determined by the laws of physics, but the final outcome is never 100% certain, because of the possible influence of Conciousness. In macroscale, physical "reality" seems to be rather determined, but the smaller the scale gets, the less predictable is the outcome. On the quantum level, physical existence is determined only by it's own possibility - so, in the end, nothing is fully determined, until it won't happen...


    and that the simple act of observation, has a direct influence on the "reality", in which we exist.



    This is not exactly accurate.
    Not in macroscale. In microscale, observation directly determines the state of a particle. Electron has no specific position or velocity, until those properties won't be measured. Measurement = observation...

    However there's a single factor, which is a total variable - it's the Free Will of a Concious Mind.


    This is an assumption. (If you contend that it's not please show how you arrive at this conclusion).
    Well, any prediction, which includes the ingerence of a Concious Mind, is uncertain, due to so called "human factor". Laws of physics exclude the coincidence in physical "reality". You can precisely predict the behavior of non-living matter. You can even predict the behavior of plants or most of animals, but the more self-aware is a Mind, the less predictable is it's behavior.

    In fact, I have no idea, how would I react in some critical situation. What would I do, if someone, would point a gun at my head? Would I try to fight, like on Holywood movies, or would I piss my pants? Would I share my last food with a hungry child, or would I eat it by myself, if I would be starving? Honestly - I don't know...

    To explain deterministic concept of reality, physicist use often the example of a crossroad, where you can go left, right or move back - what results in creation of "alternative dimensions" for each possible outcome (multi-verse theory). But besides going in one of those directions, I can do hundred different things, like going absolutely nowhere, or killing myself. Each of our actions has thousands possible outcomes and a tiny change can lead to a completely unpredicted result. And what about interactions between people in a crowd? It's simply impossible, to predict everything, what a Concious Mind will do. And I won't even mention the QM, where everything, is one, huge possibility - and even by looking around, you cause a response of surrounding. You can turn your head couple milimiters to the side and waves of light will enter your eyes at different angle. There's INFINITE number of possibilities for each o your concious and subconcious actions - and this infinity is being multiplied infinite times, with each passing second.

    Determinism simply doesn't make sense. How can I predict, what you will be your answer for this comment? Maybe you won't even answer at all... Conciousness creates variability in determined physical "reality"...

    Then why is the famous phrase that you quote - Cogito Ergo Sum - ascribed to Descartes (17th century - about 2-3,000 years after Ancient Greece)?
    Ok, sorry... My mistake... It was quite long time ago, when I learned philosophy...


    It's the Concious Mind, which causes the wave function to collapse.



    No.
    Yes.
    Without measurement, there's no collapse of wave function. And there's no measurement without a Concious Mind...
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    It's the Concious Mind, which causes the wave function to collapse. Without observer, there's no observation
    An “observer” in the context of physics does not need to be conscious mind; it’s a much more general concept.
    Of course, you can use somekind of mechanical sensor, a camera or some other recorder. But in the end, it is always a Concious Mind, which observes the results. You can create somekind of a measuring mechanism, but it's still Conciousness, which has the Will to measure and which observes the measurements. Electron won't measure itself and without any ingerence of Conciousness, it will exist only as a distribution of probability...

    How anything could be "real", if there wouldn't be no one, to observe the "reality". Physical existence is completely potential, until someone won't determine it's state of existence. Universe without Conciousness is like a MMORPG game without any computer users - it would be a completely unknown probability. It's the Mind, which defines, what is "real" and what is not...

    Universe exists for each one of us individually - when I realized this, my mind went through a really serious instability. Universe exists for you and me. Without us, it wouldn't have no reason to exist. We are the reason of entire physical existence - it's the unconditional LOVE of Universe...
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; February 27th, 2018 at 07:53 AM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    You can create somekind of a measuring mechanism, but it's still Conciousness, which has the Will to measure and which observes the measurements.
    The (shoddy) definition of "conscious" that you're using here is not one in general use, and certainly not the one used by the majority of scientists.

    How anything could be "real", if there wouldn't be no one, to observe the "reality".
    You appear to using an a priori assumption to argue your conclusion.

    Universe without Conciousness is like a MMORPG game without any computer users - it would be a completely unknown probability.
    The how did we get here?
    What "mind" observed the universe before we existed?

    It's the Mind, which defines, what is "real" and what is not...
    No.

    Universe exists for each one of us individually
    No.

    when I realized this, my mind went through a really serious instability.
    One you apparently haven't recovered from.

    Universe exists for you and me. Without us, it wouldn't have no reason to exist.
    Given that "reason" is something ascribed by humans then you're correct.
    But this:
    We are the reason of entire physical existence - it's the unconditional LOVE of Universe...
    ... is inane and unsupported (and insupportable) drivel. (E.g. the inverse exited quite merrily for an extended period before we came along).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    If you have enough information, you can predict and explain every natural process, which takes place in the physical "reality".
    You're still having problems here, aren't you?
    nothing is fully determined
    but the final outcome is never 100% certain, because of the possible influence of Conciousness.
    No.

    Well, any prediction, which includes the ingerence of a Concious Mind, is uncertain, due to so called "human factor".
    Nothing to do with QM uncertainty.

    Laws of physics exclude the coincidence in physical "reality".
    You keep saying this, but you haven't provided any evidence.

    You can precisely predict the behavior of non-living matter.
    Not true.

    what results in creation of "alternative dimensions" for each possible outcome (multi-verse theory).
    It's more a hypothesis than a theory.

    Determinism simply doesn't make sense. How can I predict, what you will be your answer for this comment?
    Then again you've already claimed that "If you have enough information, you can predict and explain every natural process, which takes place in the physical "reality".

    Ok, sorry... My mistake... It was quite long time ago, when I learned philosophy...
    Apparently you didn't learn it very well if you can make a mistake like that.

    Without measurement, there's no collapse of wave function. And there's no measurement without a Concious Mind...
    False.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; February 27th, 2018 at 08:51 AM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    The (shoddy) definition of "conscious" that you're using here is not one in general use, and certainly not the one used by the majority of scientists.
    My definition of Conciousness is simple: a point of reference in dimensional space, which is aware of self-existence.

    You appear to using an a priori assumption to argue your conclusion.
    I make only one simple assumption, that everything is a probability without somekind of confirmation.
    And to make a full confirmation of a possibility, you need to experience, observe or measure it, as a physical phenomenon in dimensional space - that means DIRECTLY...

    No.
    Yes.

    No.
    Yes.

    One you apparently haven't recovered from.
    Worse - Now I'm in 99% sure, that I was right from the very beginning

    Given that "reason" is something ascribed by humans then you're correct.
    But this:
    By the "reason" I mean something ascribed by beings, which are able to ask themselves the simplest question: WHY?

    No.
    Yes.

    Nothing to do with QM uncertainty.
    I might be wrong, but this thread belongs to PHILOSOPHY and not to Physics.


    You can precisely predict the behavior of non-living matter.



    Not true.
    So you say, that science is unable to precisely predict, what will be the outcome of a measured physical process?
    Sorry - do you consider yourself a scientist?

    It's more a hypothesis than a theory.
    Personally, I consider it a total BS - not better, than flat Earth "theory"
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; February 27th, 2018 at 10:19 AM. Reason: Qua
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,097
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    How anything could be "real", if there wouldn't be no one, to observe the "reality".
    Because reality is different than perception.
    Physical existence is completely potential, until someone won't determine it's state of existence.
    Nope. Macro physical processes proceed exactly the same with or without a conscious observer.
    Universe without Conciousness is like a MMORPG game without any computer users - it would be a completely unknown probability. It's the Mind, which defines, what is "real" and what is not...
    Nope. There is a reality that is not affected by your mind. If we disappeared completely the universe would continue. If, in ten billion years, another sentient race evolved, it would observe a universe ten billion years older, humming along as if we were never here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    My definition of Conciousness is simple: a point of reference in dimensional space, which is aware of self-existence.
    Then consciousness is NOT a requirement for wave collapse.
    (Unless, of course, you have scientific support for this claim).

    I make only one simple assumption, that everything is a probability without somekind of confirmation.
    Then stop making flat claims the way you've been doing.

    And to make a full confirmation of a possibility, you need to experience, observe or measure it, as a physical phenomenon in dimensional space - that means DIRECTLY...
    Not quite true.

    Yes.
    Yes.
    Evidence?

    By the "reason" I mean something ascribed by beings, which are able to ask themselves the simplest question: WHY?
    Then your claims are - so far as can be ascertained - not only wrong (e.g. my examples) but unsupported.

    (I do note that you failed to answer my questions).

    I might be wrong, but this thread belongs to PHILOSOPHY and not to Physics.
    So what?
    Simply because it's philosophy doesn't absolve you of supporting your claims, following rational logic and adhering to known facts.

    So you say, that science is unable to precisely predict, what will be the outcome of a measured physical process?
    Some processes we can "precisely" predict. Others we can't.




    Sorry - do you consider yourself a scientist?
    Sure.

    Personally, I consider it a total BS - not better, than flat Earth "theory"
    Then why use it as an "excuse"?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Then again you've already claimed that "If you have enough information, you can predict and explain every natural process, which takes place in the physical "reality".
    By "natural process" I mean a process without any ingerence of a Concious Mind

    Then consciousness is NOT a requirement for wave collapse.
    (Unless, of course, you have scientific support for this claim).
    Then give me an example of natural process (definition is above), where wave function collapse takes place, without ANY ingerence of concious observer

    Then your claims are - so far as can be ascertained - not only wrong (e.g. my examples) but unsupported.
    Are you asking me to show you a scientifically approved proof of God? Sorry, but science makes everything, to deny the concept of Intelligent Creation, so it won't be possible at this moment...

    Evidence?

    Double slit experiment?
    Electrons behave as wave forms, until they are directly observed.

    Some processes we can "precisely" predict. Others we can't.
    Only because because science still can't fully grasp the physical reality.
    But there's no reason to assume, that there are any laws of physics, which are beyond understanding.
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; February 27th, 2018 at 10:49 AM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    By "natural process" I mean a process without any ingerence of a Concious Mind
    So what?
    Not all natural processes are fully predictable.

    Then give me an example of natural process (definition is above), where wave function collapse takes place, without ANY ingerence of concious observer
    Oh, wrong way round: YOU made a specific claim therefore it's up to YOU to support it.
    (Two things:
    1: I still can't work out what (specific word) you mean by "ingerence", and
    2: ALL wave function collapses in natural processes take place (so far as we know) without "ingerence" of a conscious observer).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    By "natural process" I mean a process without any ingerence of a Concious Mind
    So what?
    Not all natural processes are fully predictable.

    Then give me an example of natural process (definition is above), where wave function collapse takes place, without ANY ingerence of concious observer
    Oh, wrong way round: YOU made a specific claim therefore it's up to YOU to support it.
    (Two things:
    1: I still can't work out what (specific word) you mean by "ingerence", and
    2: ALL wave function collapses in natural processes take place (so far as we know) without "ingerence" of a conscious observer).
    Is there a minimum separation between waveform (wave function?) collapses?
    (Hope that sentence "made sense")
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Because reality is different than perception.
    Of course - objective reality is virtual, while physical reality is determined by your perception.
    Objective reality is a binary code of Universe

    Nope. There is a reality that is not affected by your mind. If we disappeared completely the universe would continue. If, in ten billion years, another sentient race evolved, it would observe a universe ten billion years older, humming along as if we were never here.
    You don't get it - by "we" I mean all the concious beings in Universe. It would be stupid to assume, that there is no concious life beyond Earth...
    I'm talking about Universe without any intelligent life - and a total lack of observation
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It would seem to me that the vast majority of scientists assume that subjective experience can somehow be reduced to something physical and material, but to me this is merely conjecture.....
    If by “reduced to” you mean “fully explainable in terms of ” and by “physical and material” you mean strictly brain activity, then I think most scientists would not only agree that it is conjecture, but also demonstrably false. In order to give us an example of how our cultural knowledge would influence our subjective experience, Dan Dennett once asked us to consider “what it must have been like to be a Leipzig Lutheran churgoer in…1725, hearing one of J.S. Bach’s chorale cantatas…”:
    To see how crucial this excess baggage of ours is, imagine that musicologists unearthed a heretofore unknown Bach cantata, definitely by the great man, but hidden in a desk and probably never yet heard even by the composer himself. Everyone would be aching to hear it, to experience for the first time the “qualia” that the Leipzigers would have known, had they only heard it, but this turns out to be impossible, for the main theme of the cantata, by an ugly coincidence, is the first seven notes of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”! We who are burdened with that tune would never be able to hear Bach’s version as he intended it or as the Leipzigers would have received it….A clearer case of imagination-blockade would be hard to find, but note that it has nothing to do with biological differences or even with “intrinsic” or “ineffable” properties of Bach’s music.

    To your point: In what ways would the brain activity in those Leipzigers have differed from ours while listening to Bach’s music? And even if there were differences, they would not fully explain the differences in the subjective experiences. It would seem that the information within the brains of either party is the primary reason for the differences in the experience. Of course, none of this removes the “physical and material” from the equation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    So what?
    Not all natural processes are fully predictable.
    Not at our current level of science. Some 200-300 years more and our race will be at a totally different stage - maybe we will colonize the Solar System or maybe we will degrade to stone age.
    I think, that in the first case, science will be able to predict some 80-90% of natural processes in observable Universe.
    But I think, that physical reality is only the lowest "layer" of existence. We simply have no idea, how many things take place, beyond our perception...

    Oh, wrong way round: YOU made a specific claim therefore it's up to YOU to support it.
    (Two things:
    1: I still can't work out what (specific word) you mean by "ingerence", and
    2: ALL wave function collapses in natural processes take place (so far as we know) without "ingerence" of a conscious observer).
    ?????????????? :O :O :O
    Please - I ask all the other users of this forum: give me ONE example of a natural process, where wave function of a subatomic particle collapses, without the process of observation/measurement.

    Or am I a complete ignorant, or a wave function collapse takes place BECAUSE of the observation/measurement? Properties of a subatomic particle are only partially determined by all the possible states of this particle - it's called SUPERPOSITION and is the NATURAL state of physical matter on the subatomic level. You need to measure a property, to cause the collapse of wave function into a single and determined value... Those are the very basics of QM, am I right, or not?
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; February 27th, 2018 at 11:45 AM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,483
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post

    ?????????????? :O :O :O
    Please - I ask all the other users of this forum: give me ONE example of a process, where wave function of a subatomic particle collapses, without the process of observation/measurement.
    I am assuming all processes but I have very little real knowledge of the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    physical reality is determined by your perception.
    At one point during an interview published in quanta magazine, Donald Hoffman talks about how “snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features”. Yet prior to this, he describes a case where the reactive disposition of a hypothetical species fails to make a distinction about a quantitative difference, “even though such a distinction exists in reality” [his words, my emphasis]. So in his attempt to show how subjective, species-specific perceptions are not veridical, he traps himself into acknowledging that there are observer-independent features.

    This is a good example to remember: Why? Because it is not necessary to go to any extremes: Yes there are species-specific reactions, but why can’t they just be built out of a range of possible features that are observer-independent? Even within species there are all sorts of pointless variations; synesthesia being a good example. But despite the differences between our perceptions of say the letters “KJW”, both begin from light reflected (or in some cases emitted) from a structure that persists in the world which later passes through the pin-hole iris finally making contact with the retina—where light ceases to be the medium of information propagation (which by the way, up to that point, is a passive process; there is no observational instrument interacting with the structure).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    You don't get it - by "we" I mean all the concious beings in Universe. It would be stupid to assume, that there is no concious life beyond Earth...
    Do you also, therefore, contend that intelligent life began with (or even preceded) the universe?

    I'm talking about Universe without any intelligent life - and a total lack of observation
    Do you also, therefore, contend that, lacking intelligent life (to observe), the universe would cease to exist?

    Not at our current level of science.
    Wrong. Science itself tells us that some things are - always will be - unpredictable.

    Please - I ask all the other users of this forum: give me ONE example of a process, where wave function of a subatomic particle collapses, without the process of observation/measurement.
    You've been given the answer - twice now.
    You made the claim that a conscious observer is a requirement for wave function collapse: support it or withdraw it.


    Or am I a complete ignorant
    Apparently so, but it - equally apparently - doesn't stop you making claims that you can't support.

    or a wave function collapse takes place BECAUSE of the observation/measurement?
    Correct.

    Properties of a subatomic particle are only partially determined by all the possible states of this particle - it's called SUPERPOSITION and is the NATURAL state of physical matter on the subatomic level. You need to measure a property, to cause the collapse of wave function into a single and determined value... Those are the very basics of QM, am I right, or not?
    And your point would be...?
    1) Provide evidence/ support for the claim (YOUR claim) that consciousness is involved/ required.
    2) Address the problem regarding the birth of the universe before (the possibility) of intelligent life arose.

    Are you asking me to show you a scientifically approved proof of God?
    Oh wait: you're claiming "god" is the observer? Then please explain how you solve the dichotomy between "god" (supposedly) observing everything and the fact that not every wave function in the universe has already collapsed.

    Sorry, but science makes everything, to deny the concept of Intelligent Creation, so it won't be possible at this moment...
    Actually I'm not asking for "scientifically approved proof of "god", I'm asking - go back and read my question - for supporting evidence for your claim. Even if it's simply a logical argument.

    Double slit experiment?



    Electrons behave as wave forms, until they are directly observed.
    Yup. And which part of that experiment shows that a conscious observer is required? (Hint: science doesn't claim that this is the case).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    You've been given the answer - twice now.
    You made the claim a conscious observer is a requirement for wave function collapse: support it or withdraw it.
    If you really want to... Are you aware, that it will only prove, how much wrong you are... But if you insist...
    Listen to first 20 seconds of this movie:



    I suggest you to watch also the rest - and maybe after this short course we will be able to speak a bit about QM, ok?
    Sorry - for some reason I assumed, that someone, who considers himself a scientist has some basic knowledge about discussed subjects... Well, I was obviously once again wrong...
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    If you really want to... Are you aware, that it will only prove, how much wrong you are... But if you insist...
    Listen to first 20 seconds of this movie:
    The first 20 seconds?
    I gave it over five minutes. Nowhere does that video state that a conscious observer is required (and if it did it would be wrong).

    Sorry - for some reason I assumed, that someone, who considers himself a scientist has some basic knowledge about discussed subjects...
    I see, you - apparently - get your physics from Youtube videos while I had to settle for a degree-level education at university. And I turn out to be the one who doesn't "have some basic knowledge of the subject". Wow!

    Well, I was obviously once again wrong...
    Yeah.

    Final time: provide support for your claim or withdraw it.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    The first 20 seconds?
    I gave it over five minutes. Nowhere does that video state that a conscious observer is required (and if it did it would be wrong)
    Give me an example of unconcious observer...
    Explain the process of observation, without the Conciousness...

    Observation REQUIRES self-awareness
    What is measuring the property of an electron? Another electron? Space? Dark matter spies. Maybe electron measures his own properties?
    Or can it be someone with a concious mind??? Someone, who's measuring the property?
    Unconcious/dead matter can't observe itself...
    If you don't agree, then show me an example of a wave function collapse due to a self-measurement of an electron... Or any other example of wave function collapse, which takes place without the ingerence of scientists/concious observers...

    OBSERVATION=AWARENESS=CONCIOUSNESS

    Mechanical sensors???
    Who built them? Who's using the tools and who's getting the readings? Who's working with the measurements?
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; February 27th, 2018 at 12:34 PM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Observation REQUIRES self-awareness
    No.
    Go back to post #7 by Markus. I'll repeat it here: An “observer” in the context of physics does not need to be conscious mind; it’s a much more general concept.

    OBSERVATION=AWARENESS=CONCIOUSNESS
    No.

    Still no evidence... (and so much for me lacking the basic knowledge - you can't even be bothered to check enough sources to verify - or refute - your pre-formed ideas).

    I'll also quote a part of the Wiki page on "Observer (Quantum Physics)":A number of new-age religious or philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics, notably "consciousness causes collapse", give the observer a special role, or place constraints on who or what can be an observer. There is no peer-reviewed research that backs such claims.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    I've googled out "observer quantum mechanics" and it turns out that your so-called "more general concept of observer" simply doesn't exist...

    This is the only valuable info, which I managed to find:
    https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0011/0011086.pdf

    "7. Conclusions:
    Though quantum mechanics is a fully consistent theory and sufficient as a usefulguide to the physical phenomena around us, we may wish more than an algorithm forcomputing probabilities. Classical physics provided more; it imparted a worldview,but one we now know to be fundamentally flawed.The observations encompassed by classical physics allowed the exclusion of theobserver from the universe addressed by physics. The worldview suggested by thequantum experiment either challenges that exclusion or suggests new physicalphenomena. It not only hints at a different view of reality, but “[It is] likely that thenew way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us.”(27)Physicists appropriately seek the least astonishing solution. However, recentcomments on the observer problem can give the impression that the issue has beenresolved, that no hints of a deeper mystery are present. It is a temptation (that we canshare) to reject observer involvement as being so preposterous that no conceivableevidence could ever establish it. But such a stance hardly seems open-minded, and thehistory of science suggests it is flawed.Since the observer problem in classical physics (the conflict of free will withdeterminism) arose only within the theory, the problem could be evaded by excludingconsideration of the mind of the observer from the realm encompassed by the theory.This option seems unavailable to quantum physics since the intrusion of the observeroccurs in the experimental observations. To avoid the observer in this case, theexcluded realm must be greater and its boundary more vague. If, indeed, the realitythat physics addresses is only part of a larger interacting reality including the observer,quantum physics experiments have disclosed physical evidence for the existence ofsuch a larger reality"
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Ohhh...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interp...ntum_mechanics
    "Many minds[edit]

    Main article: Many-minds interpretation
    The many-minds interpretation of quantum mechanics extends the many-worlds interpretation by proposing that the distinction between worlds should be made at the level of the mind of an individual observer."

    Hmmm - doesn't it fit perfectly to my claims?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation
    "When an observer measures a quantum system and becomes entangled with it, it now constitutes a larger quantum system. In regards to each possibility within the wave function, a mental state of the brain corresponds. And ultimately, only one mind is experienced, leading the others to branch off and become inaccessible, albeit real.[7] In this way, every sentient being is attributed with an infinity of minds, whose prevalence correspond to the amplitude of the wavefunction. As an observer checks a measurement, the probability of realizing a specific measurement directly correlates to the number of minds they have where they see that measurement. It is in this way that the probabilistic nature of quantum measurements are obtained by the Many-minds Interpretation."

    "
    No sentient observer[edit]

    Consider the case where there is no sentient observer, i.e. no mind around to observe the experiment. In this case, the detector will be in an indefinite state. The photon is both passed and absorbed, and will remain in this state. The correlations are withheld in that none of the possible "minds", or wave function states, correspond to non correlated results.[8]
    One sentient observer[edit]

    Now expand the situation to have one sentient being observing the device. Now, he too enters the indefinite state. His eyes, body, and brain are seeing both spins at the same time. The mind however, stochastically chooses one of the directions, and that is what the mind sees. When this observer goes over to the second detector, his body will see both results. His mind will choose the result that agrees with the first detector, and the observer will see the expected results. However, the observer's mind seeing one result does not directly affect the distant state - there is just no wave function in which the expected correlations do not exist. The true correlation only happens when he actually goes over to the second detector.[8]
    Two sentient observers[edit]

    When two people look at two different detectors that scan entangled particles, both observers will enter an indefinite state, as with one observer. These results need not agree – the second observer's mind does not have to have results that correlate with the first's. When one observer tells the results to the second observer, their two minds cannot communicate and thus will only interact with the other's body, which is still indefinite. When the second observer responds, his body will respond with whatever result agrees with the first observer's mind. This means that both observer's minds will be in a state of the wavefunction that always get the expected results, but individually their results could be different.[8]"

    And what now?
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    I've googled out "observer quantum mechanics" and it turns out that your so-called "more general concept of observer" simply doesn't exist...
    Then you A) haven't Googled very well and B) once again demonstrated (quite conclusively) that YOU are the one lacking the basics of what we're talking about.

    This is the only valuable info, which I managed to find:
    https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0011/0011086.pdf

    "7. Conclusions:
    Though quantum mechanics is a fully consistent theory and sufficient as a usefulguide to the physical phenomena around us, we may wish more than an algorithm forcomputing probabilities. Classical physics provided more; it imparted a worldview,but one we now know to be fundamentally flawed.The observations encompassed by classical physics allowed the exclusion of theobserver from the universe addressed by physics. The worldview suggested by thequantum experiment either challenges that exclusion or suggests new physicalphenomena. It not only hints at a different view of reality, but “[It is] likely that thenew way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us.”(27)Physicists appropriately seek the least astonishing solution. However, recentcomments on the observer problem can give the impression that the issue has beenresolved, that no hints of a deeper mystery are present. It is a temptation (that we canshare) to reject observer involvement as being so preposterous that no conceivableevidence could ever establish it. But such a stance hardly seems open-minded, and thehistory of science suggests it is flawed.Since the observer problem in classical physics (the conflict of free will withdeterminism) arose only within the theory, the problem could be evaded by excludingconsideration of the mind of the observer from the realm encompassed by the theory.This option seems unavailable to quantum physics since the intrusion of the observeroccurs in the experimental observations. To avoid the observer in this case, theexcluded realm must be greater and its boundary more vague. If, indeed, the realitythat physics addresses is only part of a larger interacting reality including the observer,quantum physics experiments have disclosed physical evidence for the existence ofsuch a larger reality"
    A) That doesn't state that a conscious observer is required1, and
    B) It's taking about a different problem altogether (I.e. you don't even know enough to discern this).

    1 It actually states at one point: BUT A ROBOT CAN DO IT! (Or do you contend that a robot is a conscious entity?).

    See you in 3 days.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,097
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Because reality is different than perception.
    Of course - objective reality is virtual, while physical reality is determined by your perception.
    No; objective reality is the opposite of virtual reality.

    If someone perceives the world to be flat that does not make it so.
    Nope. There is a reality that is not affected by your mind. If we disappeared completely the universe would continue. If, in ten billion years, another sentient race evolved, it would observe a universe ten billion years older, humming along as if we were never here.
    You don't get it - by "we" I mean all the concious beings in Universe. It would be stupid to assume, that there is no concious life beyond Earth...
    I am assuming no such thing, and in any case it doesn't matter.

    If there is conscious life in the universe, the universe behaves in accordance with physical laws.
    If there is no conscious life in the universe, the universe behaves in accordance with physical laws.
    I'm talking about Universe without any intelligent life - and a total lack of observation
    Nothing would change, beyond the lack of observation.

    When you heat a pot of water, it boils in exactly the same time whether you watch it or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,483
    Is Maxwell's Demon at all relevant to this subject?

    I mean we seem to have skirted the territory of whether observation of something might confer it with reality.

    The idea behind the Demon was that a knowledge of the energetic states of individual atoms in a system could be used to coral them into segregated areas and so get around the second(was it?) law of thermodynamics.

    I appreciate this (circumvention of the law) did not actually happen** but is there a superficial similarity between these 2 ideas?

    The idea that the conscious mind was somehow "above" the physical world rather than an integral part of it....

    Just musing......

    **involving information theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Give me an example of unconcious observer...
    Anything that can be entangled with the quantum system in question.
    For example, if you have a free and isolated electron that is not being interacted with, then the violation of Bell’s inequalities implies that this electron “has” no definite values for its fundamental properties like the spin vector etc. Note that this is not an issue of those values not being known, it’s an issue of them not existing.

    You can now take a second electron, and let the two interact in some way, so that an entanglement relationship is established. This creates a correlation between measurement outcomes, so that, if the spin direction is known for the second electron, it is also known for the first. In that sense, the second electron - and indeed any entanglement relationship - functions as an “observer”. In such (quantum) cases, entanglement is functionally equivalent to a measurement, and obviously no conscious observer is required for this; just another particle suffices.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    But despite the differences between our perceptions of say the letters “KJW”, both begin from light reflected (or in some cases emitted) from a structure that persists in the world which later passes through the pin-hole iris finally making contact with the retina—where light ceases to be the medium of information propagation
    This is true, but it’s not what I was referring to. I do not need to perceive any objects through the external senses in order to have a mental object with qualia (so the KJW thing was probably a bad example, my apologies). I can just think of “Christmas” as an abstract concept, and it will feel a certain way (not the same way as the written word, which is a different mental object). So is this “real” an absolute sense that everyone can agree on, or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    To your point: In what ways would the brain activity in those Leipzigers have differed from ours while listening to Bach’s music? And even if there were differences, they would not fully explain the differences in the subjective experiences. It would seem that the information within the brains of either party is the primary reason for the differences in the experience. Of course, none of this removes the “physical and material” from the equation.
    I’m afraid I don’t quite understand. If differences in brain structure do not fully explain differences in experience, then how does this not put in question material reductionism? After all, reductionism posits (amongst other things) that every information stored within the brain has a physical basis, for example corresponding structures within the connectome, or strengthening/weakening of synaptic connections. If that is the case, then similar brain structure would necessarily mean similar experience. But as you rightly point out, that does not seem to be the case in the real world. In fact, even within the same individual, very similar mental states can often show vastly different EEG and fMRI patterns.

    Again, the only point I am trying to make here really is that we quite simply have not established a causative relationship between brain and mental experience. Someone who knows nothing about radios and electromagnetism could - after observing that the various dials and buttons on the radio have an influence on what he hears - quite naturally conclude that what he hears is caused/generated by the radio. In fact, that is probably exactly what a primitive tribesman would think, when shown a radio for the first time. Clearly, a fully functioning radio is needed to hear normal sounds, and if we mess with the electronics, then this will change what we hear. It is also very difficult to “find” the sounds without a radio present, though they are of course there in an encoded form. How can we scientifically exclude the possibility that the brain functions in a similar manner? A normally functioning brain is required for normal consciousness, and if we mess with the brain, then this can have consequences for consciousness; but that does not automatically mean that the brain is the causative agent that “generates” consciousness. But then again, it could mean that.

    So I am just trying to figure out how to scientifically - i.e. in a falsifiable manner - establish causation. This is not as clear cut an issue as might at first seem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    But despite the differences between our perceptions of say the letters “KJW”, both begin from light reflected (or in some cases emitted) from a structure that persists in the world which later passes through the pin-hole iris finally making contact with the retina—where light ceases to be the medium of information propagation
    This is true, but it’s not what I was referring to. I do not need to perceive any objects through the external senses in order to have a mental object with qualia (so the KJW thing was probably a bad example, my apologies). I can just think of “Christmas” as an abstract concept, and it will feel a certain way (not the same way as the written word, which is a different mental object). So is this “real” an absolute sense that everyone can agree on, or not?
    Hmm….I guess when the thread got so quickly littered with so many remarks, things got a little mixed up. My post was actually directed toward AstralTraveler. I only borrowed that part of our discussion to trash the idea that reality is fully determined by our perceptions and has no independent qualities or features apart from them. As to the final question in your post: I certainly don’t know about some absolute sense in which we could all agree that the experience is "real". I would definitely agree, however, that it can’t be ignored.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    To your point: In what ways would the brain activity in those Leipzigers have differed from ours while listening to Bach’s music? And even if there were differences, they would not fully explain the differences in the subjective experiences. It would seem that the information within the brains of either party is the primary reason for the differences in the experience. Of course, none of this removes the “physical and material” from the equation.
    I’m afraid I don’t quite understand. If differences in brain structure do not fully explain differences in experience, then how does this not put in question material reductionism? After all, reductionism posits (amongst other things) that every information stored within the brain has a physical basis, for example corresponding structures within the connectome, or strengthening/weakening of synaptic connections. If that is the case, then similar brain structure would necessarily mean similar experience. But as you rightly point out, that does not seem to be the case in the real world. In fact, even within the same individual, very similar mental states can often show vastly different EEG and fMRI patterns.

    Again, the only point I am trying to make here really is that we quite simply have not established a causative relationship between brain and mental experience. Someone who knows nothing about radios and electromagnetism could - after observing that the various dials and buttons on the radio have an influence on what he hears - quite naturally conclude that what he hears is caused/generated by the radio. In fact, that is probably exactly what a primitive tribesman would think, when shown a radio for the first time. Clearly, a fully functioning radio is needed to hear normal sounds, and if we mess with the electronics, then this will change what we hear. It is also very difficult to “find” the sounds without a radio present, though they are of course there in an encoded form. How can we scientifically exclude the possibility that the brain functions in a similar manner? A normally functioning brain is required for normal consciousness, and if we mess with the brain, then this can have consequences for consciousness; but that does not automatically mean that the brain is the causative agent that “generates” consciousness. But then again, it could mean that.

    So I am just trying to figure out how to scientifically - i.e. in a falsifiable manner - establish causation. This is not as clear cut an issue as might at first seem.
    Actually, all I meant by “part of the equation” is that, by my lights anyway, something physical and material need be present for some extended history, otherwise, no consciousness—kind of in the way you describe the necessity of the functioning radio or brain. I’m not really sure what the “reductionist” stance is, or how clearly defined it is—I think you understand that much better than I do. Would I fall under the umbrella of “reductionist” because I don’t think that the cause of given experience comes from anything other than what is happening in the brain at that point? I suppose. But as you can tell from my post, I don’t think looking exclusively at brain activity will help us fully understand or explain subjective experience; I do believe that some other level of analysis is required. If that makes me a traitor within some reductionist camp, so be it!

    As this discussion with you progresses, I’ve realized I find the idea that the cause of our experiences could be anything other than some dynamic process in some ways tempered or attenuated by dispositional (idiosyncratic?) species/individual-specific ways—built up from both genetic lineages and shorter, lived histories—unappealing because I guess, deep down, I don’t believe it to be productive. I’ve also realized that I need to make it clear—so that you no longer feel compelled to explain yourself—I agree that there is no proof of causation.

    I like your radio analogy. And I’m curious as hell about what you’ve imagined (if at all) might be the cause (and no: I don't mean the sounds in the radio Lol).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I like your radio analogy. And I’m curious as hell about what you’ve imagined (if at all) might be the cause (and no: I don't mean the sounds in the radio Lol).
    I honestly don’t know the answer to this; in fact I don’t think we even have enough data to make an informed guess right now. My issue is just that, when I read literature about consciousness, most scientists simply seem to assume that it must in some way emerge from the physical structures of the central nervous system, i.e. that consciousness is caused by the brain, even if we don’t know yet the mechanisms by which this happens. And somehow this just doesn’t sit right with me - I can see how a chaotic system in general can give rise to higher order phenomena via emergence (e.g. dunes in drifing sand etc), but in those cases it is always something material giving rise to something else that is also material in nature, and can be uniquely reduced to the dynamics of the underlying system. However, the situation is different with consciousness - when someone claims that a material system (like the brain) alone can give rise to something else that is not material (like subjective experience), then that raises red flags for me.

    I am not claiming that consciousness is not explainable in reductionist terms (it may well turn out to be), I am just saying to keep an open mind and consider the possibility that consciousness might be a separate phenomenon that isn’t actually caused by the brain, but rather just requires a brain to manifest as subjective experience, in the same manner as you need a radio to listen to music, even though they are distinct phenomena that aren’t causative agents of one another. I think both these possibilities should be looked at, and methodologies should be explored that may lead to us being able to tell which one applies. Just saying - as so many scientists seem to do - that if it’s not explainable in materialistic terms then it must be wrong by default, is neither very scientific, nor is it good enough.

    Personally I have a hunch that understanding consciousness may lead us back to the concept of entanglement (not necessarily quantum, just entanglement in general), in which case it may be something that is fundamentally built into nature, and hence exists on all scales and in varying degrees - and not just “either conscious or not”. Basically, my thinking is that all things can be granted some form of subjective experience, which is dual in some way to how those things can be entangled with their environment. In that manner, there is a fundamental, irreducible unit of consciousness, which would correspond to the simplest form of entanglement between two elementary particles. Starting from there, you can build up more complex forms of consciousness by combining these fundamental units in the right ways. Again, not just any combination will do, but we would be looking for those combinations that maximise the number of possibilities for entanglement with the rest of the universe. For example, a pebble possesses only a very few degrees of “entanglement freedom” (not an official term, just something I made up here) with its environment, since it interacts only very minimally with its surroundings; therefore, there is only a very basic degree of consciousness that we could ascribe to it. A living animal on the other hand has a very large degree of entanglement freedom, since it interacts with its environment in complex causal action-feedback-reaction loops, so we ascribe to it a higher form of consciousness. It is precisely the brain that mediates those feedback loops, so a brain is required, but it isn’t the causative agent of consciousness - rather, consciousness is the extra information needed to describe how the system relates to its environment. The bigger and more complex the brain, the more information you need to describe the relationship between the system and the rest of the world, because the system can engage in more complex feedback loops with the environment. You also need extra information to describe how the system relates to itself over space and time - that’s self-consciousness.

    So, to summarise, my personal conjecture (not claim) is that consciousness may be functionally dual to the notion of generalised entanglement; in essence, consciousness is roughly speaking how something relates to everything else, as well as to itself. It’s a relationship, rather than a “thing”, in the same manner as - say - in relativity theory, time dilation and length contraction are physically real as relationships between different observers. The more complex the interaction between a system and its environment can be, the more conscious that system is. The most complex interactions are found precisely in living things that posses large brains; without brains, only the very simplest interactions can take place (as is the case for single-cell organisms etc). Therefore, there is a correlation between brain complexity and degree of consciousness, but no direct causal relationship. Consciousness is dual to generalised entanglement; they are just two ways to look at the same thing.

    But these are just my personal ideas. I can see that many people won’t even want to consider this, because the implication is that human beings are just a collection of highly complex, chaotic feedback processes; essentially machines, the momentary state of which is highly sensitive to initial and boundary conditions. This creates an illusion of self-identity and free will, whereas in reality it’s just a bunch of physical processes playing out. This goes above and beyond materialism, because consciousness in this picture cannot be reduced to brain states, but is an informational state that describes a subject-object relationship.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I think it is a mistake to completely ignore the subjective realm when trying to understand how the universe works. Personally I think that “reality” is not an absolute, objective thing, but something that is meaningful only in relation to an observer. Hence, to describe reality it would seem necessary to me to make reference to how it is being observed.
    I agree. Specifically, the particular reality within the multiverse, and the particular instant in time that is the present, are subjective notions because there is no physical "YOU ARE HERE" marker in the space of all possible realities. We perceive particular times in particular realities because these particular times in particular realities contain those brain-states that are perceiving those particular times in particular realities. The same is true for all times in all realities in which we exist, but it is interesting that we only perceive a single time in a single reality.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    I'm surprised, that a professional physicist, who believe mostly in the superiority of mathematical formulas, can also participate in a discussion about totally metaphysical subject.
    I'm actually NOT a professional physicist. But thank you for thinking that my writing could have been from a professional physicist. I am just an amateur doing this as a hobby. It goes to show you what can be accomplished if you learn the mathematics. As for discussing a metaphysical subject, I have a deep interest in the fundamental nature of reality, and believe that a philosophical approach is needed to answer the questions that science cannot (due to the intrinsic limitations of empiricism).
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    No; objective reality is the opposite of virtual reality.
    Not really. What is the objective reality in the case of a computer game - the image displayed on the screen or the binary code?\
    If someone perceives the world to be flat that does not make it so.
    Exactly! Perception is subjective - yet, we experience the physical "reality" by perceiving it
    I am assuming no such thing, and in any case it doesn't matter.

    If there is conscious life in the universe, the universe behaves in accordance with physical laws.
    If there is no conscious life in the universe, the universe behaves in accordance with physical laws.
    And how anyone could say, how Universe behaves, if there's no one, who could see it?
    Existence without observation is just a possibility.
    Nothing would change, beyond the lack of observation.
    When you heat a pot of water, it boils in exactly the same time whether you watch it or not.
    Yes, but only because you started to heat it up - so your action determined a possible future.

    I don't say, that objective reality doesn't exist. I say, that objective reality is not physical - as physical reality is determined by perception, what makes it subjective/relative. Objective realty has to be transcendental, as it needs to include all probabilities. Objective reality is the binary code of Universe - it's the actual form, which is not physical...
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Anything that can be entangled with the quantum system in question.
    For example, if you have a free and isolated electron that is not being interacted with, then the violation of Bell’s inequalities implies that this electron “has” no definite values for its fundamental properties like the spin vector etc. Note that this is not an issue of those values not being known, it’s an issue of them not existing.

    You can now take a second electron, and let the two interact in some way, so that an entanglement relationship is established. This creates a correlation between measurement outcomes, so that, if the spin direction is known for the second electron, it is also known for the first. In that sense, the second electron - and indeed any entanglement relationship - functions as an “observer”. In such (quantum) cases, entanglement is functionally equivalent to a measurement, and obviously no conscious observer is required for this; just another particle suffices.
    Nice example! However entangled particles still don't have determined values. You need to measure one of entangled particles, to determine the state of a second one. 2 entangled electrons don't have specific orientation of spin - you need to measure one of them, what will cause the wave function collapse of the second electron. So, still act of measurement is needed - and every act requires a will...

    I think, that electric current might be a better example. Orientation of magnetic moments for electrons in a current is determined by the orientation of electric component - so, no observer is needed, to determine a specific value of those electrons. Damn, I just dug up my own grave :P Now I'm not sure, how to counter my own argument... Maybe electric currents are capable to determine the potential form of reality, similar to a Conciousness...?
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; March 2nd, 2018 at 05:05 PM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    I agree. Specifically, the particular reality within the multiverse, and the particular instant in time that is the present, are subjective notions because there is no physical "YOU ARE HERE" marker in the space of all possible realities. We perceive particular times in particular realities because these particular times in particular realities contain those brain-states that are perceiving those particular times in particular realities. The same is true for all times in all realities in which we exist, but it is interesting that we only perceive a single time in a single reality.
    Problem is, that each Conciousness makes a single, specified and determined point in a determined space and time. There's absolutely nothing, what would allow us to assume, that there's "some other", parallel physical reality, which is beyond our perception. Conciousness is the physical "YOU ARE HERE" marker - as it collapses the possibility to a single and determined state. I exist only HERE and only NOW and I can't exist anywhere/anytime else - if there's a second me, it's not actually me...

    The main issue with the Many Worlds (multiverse) theory is, that it assumes physical existence beyond perception - while physical reality is all about perception. Why people assume, that alternative outcomes of a single action have to exist physically, just as the outcome, which is being observed? Possibility, which can't be observed, remains a non-physical possibility. I think, that instead alternative and parallel physical realities, we should talk about a single superposition of all possible alternative outcomes and about the Conciousness, which collapses this superposition into a determined state. In such case, superposition is the objective form of reality - as it includes all possible states and aspects of a subjective observation...

    I'm actually NOT a professional physicist. But thank you for thinking that my writing could have been from a professional physicist. I am just an amateur doing this as a hobby. It goes to show you what can be accomplished if you learn the mathematics. As for discussing a metaphysical subject, I have a deep interest in the fundamental nature of reality, and believe that a philosophical approach is needed to answer the questions that science cannot (due to the intrinsic limitations of empiricism).
    Ohh, good to know, that I'm not the only amateur in here I was going to high school with mathematics/informatics profile, so it's not, that I don't know anything about math. I just believe, that there's no need of math to understand the fundamental nature of reality - due to the intrinsic limitations of empiricism

    I believe that physics is actually limited by math. I never was good at physics in school, because all we did, was learning the formulas - which don't have no meaning, without actual understanding of the subject...
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; March 2nd, 2018 at 05:40 PM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Hmm….I guess when the thread got so quickly littered with so many remarks, things got a little mixed up. My post was actually directed toward AstralTraveler. I only borrowed that part of our discussion to trash the idea that reality is fully determined by our perceptions and has no independent qualities or features apart from them. As to the final question in your post: I certainly don’t know about some absolute sense in which we could all agree that the experience is "real". I would definitely agree, however, that it can’t be ignored.
    I don't say, that entire reality is fully determined by our perception - I say, that PHYSICAL reality is. That's what the GR is all about: different observers can perceive the reality in different ways - but it's impossible to say, which one perceive it "correctly". That's because objective reality is BEYOND perception.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    I am not claiming that consciousness is not explainable in reductionist terms (it may well turn out to be), I am just saying to keep an open mind and consider the possibility that consciousness might be a separate phenomenon that isn’t actually caused by the brain, but rather just requires a brain to manifest as subjective experience, in the same manner as you need a radio to listen to music, even though they are distinct phenomena that aren’t causative agents of one another. I think both these possibilities should be looked at, and methodologies should be explored that may lead to us being able to tell which one applies. Just saying - as so many scientists seem to do - that if it’s not explainable in materialistic terms then it must be wrong by default, is neither very scientific, nor is it good enough.
    And here I agree completely. Radio is a very nice example - a mechanical receiver, which allows a transcendental information to manifest itself in a physicalm form. I think however, that a computer is even better analogy - where central unit is the brain and Conciousness is the user...
    And you're absolutely right about most of scientists, who reject the idea of Conciousness, as something non-materialistic. I believe, that this is the reason, why scientists still can't figure out how to unify physics - science seems to completely ignore the fact, that Conciousness has a significant influence on the physical reality...
    But these are just my personal ideas. I can see that many people won’t even want to consider this, because the implication is that human beings are just a collection of highly complex, chaotic feedback processes; essentially machines, the momentary state of which is highly sensitive to initial and boundary conditions. This creates an illusion of self-identity and free will, whereas in reality it’s just a bunch of physical processes playing out. This goes above and beyond materialism, because consciousness in this picture cannot be reduced to brain states, but is an informational state that describes a subject-object relationship.
    I think, that source of Conciousness in physical "reality" is in the neural networks. But don't ask me how it works - maybe Conciousness is the effect of information reprocessing...? Science already works with neural networks to create AI - and there is a significant progress in last couple years...

    This assumption can lead to very interesting conclusions, because:
    Scientists discover the universe grows like a Giant Brain


    Can it mean, that we exist in the physical manifestation of a Greater Mind? I believe, that the answer is: YES
    Main problem is, that science is totally AFRAID, to find some definitive answers to the biggest questions. What would happen, if science would prove the existence of God? For now science makes everything to deny such idea... I think, that's because people associate the word "God" with the word "religion".

    Anyway, I simply love the fact, that there's such thin border between physics and metaphyscis - and discussing such abstract idea, as Conciousness leads to discussion about quantum mechanics and electromagnetism. This can be a sign, that science is in fact ready, to be unified into a single theory. Science has already everything to make it true. What we need now, are the scientists with open minds, who won't be afraid to discuss about things, considered by most, as "scientific heresy".
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; March 2nd, 2018 at 05:22 PM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,781
    No, just no. PLEASE STOP!!!!!!! We are NOT part of a "greater mind".

    You need to just stop spewing the bs that comes into your brain when you look at pictures.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    No, just no. PLEASE STOP!!!!!!! We are NOT part of a "greater mind".

    You need to just stop spewing the bs that comes into your brain when you look at pictures.
    There's a link above the picture:
    Scientists discover the universe grows like a Giant Brain

    It's science, not bs. Universe DOES behave, like neural network. But you just proved, that I was right, when I said, that most of "scientists" lack an open mind...
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    doubled post :/
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    (...) but it is interesting that we only perceive a single time in a single reality.
    Yes, that is another little mystery that I have been pondering a lot of late, because there does not seem to be a physical basis to us experiencing a “flow of time”, i.e. a succession of present-moments. The issue isn’t so much the arrow of time, but the fact that we perceive it as a well ordered “flow” at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I'm actually NOT a professional physicist. But thank you for thinking that my writing could have been from a professional physicist. I am just an amateur doing this as a hobby.
    That’s interesting I would also have thought that your background is in professional academia. But I’m the same, I’m only doing it as a hobby too, though in the past two years I have found myself drifting away from the serious study of physics a bit, in favour of other interests and pursuits I enjoy. I’d personally like to see a more integrated, more holistic approach to understanding the human condition, so I’m looking into other domains of enquiry too, while still attempting to remain as objective and scientific as possible. But I still try to follow latest developments in physics, and interesting stuff appearing on arXiv - though clearly your expertise exceeds mine greatly, which is a good thing, because I get to learn from you
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    You need to measure one of entangled particles, to determine the state of a second one.
    Yes, and that measurement is itself an instance of creating an entanglement relationship with the already existing system of entangled particles (which is described by a single wavefunction). Measurement and entanglement form a duality, they are functionally equivalent, and all you can do is build up increasingly complex networks with them. That was my main point. The entirety of conscious experience just consists of complex nested multi-scale hierarchies of entanglement relationships. There is simply nothing else there that you can point your finger to and say “this is real independent of its relationship to anything else”. Crucially, there is also no independently existing observer to be found anywhere, other than these entanglement relationships themselves. That was the basis for my personal conjecture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    that Conciousness has a significant influence on the physical reality...
    Except that this is not what I implied. There is a mutual dependency between subject and object, but no causal relationship; consciousness does not influence physical reality, any more than physical reality uniquely determines consciousness. It goes much deeper than this.

    More importantly still, my stance is in no way anti-science or anti-mainstream, it is pro-knowledge. The aim is to better understand the human condition, that is all.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; March 3rd, 2018 at 01:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,781
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    No, just no. PLEASE STOP!!!!!!! We are NOT part of a "greater mind".

    You need to just stop spewing the bs that comes into your brain when you look at pictures.
    There's a link above the picture:
    Scientists discover the universe grows like a Giant Brain

    It's science, not bs. Universe DOES behave, like neural network. But you just proved, that I was right, when I said, that most of "scientists" lack an open mind...
    Growing in a manner similar to neurons doen't in any way make the universe a "greater mind". What I am demonstrating is skepticism in the face of a bs assertion based on what you want to be true.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Growing in a manner similar to neurons doen't in any way make the universe a "greater mind". What I am demonstrating is skepticism in the face of a bs assertion based on what you want to be true.
    It looks and behaves like a brain... Hmm, what could it be? Mystery...
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    It looks
    To an extent.

    and behaves like a brain...
    In what ways?

    Note: you really shouldn't get your "information" from crank websites.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Except that this is not what I implied. There is a mutual dependency between subject and object, but no causal relationship; consciousness does not influence physical reality, any more than physical reality uniquely determines consciousness. It goes much deeper than this.
    There's only an endless process of information exchange...

    More importantly still, my stance is in no way anti-science or anti-mainstream, it is pro-knowledge. The aim is to better understand the human condition, that is all.
    It's all about understanding
    Yes, that is another little mystery that I have been pondering a lot of late, because there does not seem to be a physical basis to us experiencing a “flow of time”, i.e. a succession of present-moments. The issue isn’t so much the arrow of time, but the fact that we perceive it as a well ordered “flow” at all.
    There's no mystery. Apparent flow of time is defined by the rate at which processes take place in the environment of an observer. Time is not a predetermined linear dimension, but a wave function, which collapses into a determined state in the present moment (real-time). You can move from point A to point B in time, but only in one direction - and while you are located in point A, point B doesn't exist physicaly - it's still undetermined...
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    ...I am not claiming that consciousness is not explainable in reductionist terms (it may well turn out to be), I am just saying to keep an open mind and consider the possibility that consciousness might be a separate phenomenon that isn’t actually caused by the brain, but rather just requires a brain to manifest as subjective experience, in the same manner as you need a radio to listen to music, even though they are distinct phenomena that aren’t causative agents of one another. I think both these possibilities should be looked at, and methodologies should be explored that may lead to us being able to tell which one applies. Just saying - as so many scientists seem to do - that if it’s not explainable in materialistic terms then it must be wrong by default, is neither very scientific, nor is it good enough.

    Personally I have a hunch that understanding consciousness may lead us back to the concept of entanglement (not necessarily quantum, just entanglement in general), in which case it may be something that is fundamentally built into nature, and hence exists on all scales and in varying degrees - and not just “either conscious or not”. Basically, my thinking is that all things can be granted some form of subjective experience, which is dual in some way to how those things can be entangled with their environment. In that manner, there is a fundamental, irreducible unit of consciousness, which would correspond to the simplest form of entanglement between two elementary particles. Starting from there, you can build up more complex forms of consciousness by combining these fundamental units in the right ways. Again, not just any combination will do, but we would be looking for those combinations that maximise the number of possibilities for entanglement with the rest of the universe. For example, a pebble possesses only a very few degrees of “entanglement freedom” (not an official term, just something I made up here) with its environment, since it interacts only very minimally with its surroundings; therefore, there is only a very basic degree of consciousness that we could ascribe to it. A living animal on the other hand has a very large degree of entanglement freedom, since it interacts with its environment in complex causal action-feedback-reaction loops, so we ascribe to it a higher form of consciousness. It is precisely the brain that mediates those feedback loops, so a brain is required, but it isn’t the causative agent of consciousness - rather, consciousness is the extra information needed to describe how the system relates to its environment. The bigger and more complex the brain, the more information you need to describe the relationship between the system and the rest of the world, because the system can engage in more complex feedback loops with the environment. You also need extra information to describe how the system relates to itself over space and time - that’s self-consciousness....
    To me this sounds very much like a description any philosopher/neuroscientist/evolutionary biologist might make, only using a somewhat different language. I can’t speak for others here, but some of the words you used while gradually exposing your conjecture in much earlier posts threw me off. Typically if I see the word “dualist” in the subject of a sentence offering an explanation of consciousness, I might not even see the predicate! (Lol) I have a similar reaction to the word “entanglement” because I so strongly associate it with quantum mechanics, and in my view, most of the appeals to this field seem like an unnecessary retreat. Your usage of the word “entanglement” is broader.


    The only thing that throws me for a loop in your last post is: “…my thinking is that all things can be granted some form of subjective experience….”
    I can understand defining consciousness as a form of entanglement between a thing and its environment, which then means that, by definition, consciousness must need be ascribed to something as elementary as two interacting particles, but isn’t subjective experience a quality that emerges only after a threshold level of complexity?


    If you studied a single plane wave from a mathematical viewpoint, not knowing that it is a fourier transform of an orchestral piece of music, you would note some interesting consistencies of patterns, but without the “co-evolved” machinery that can transduce it in a particular way, you would have little understanding of the richness and quality of that orchestral piece. The plane wave could also be transduced to light waves which would provide richness from another perspective. We needn’t stop at mechanical machines: computational, virtual machines (housed in things like brains) could transduce external data; and why stop there? We could have virtual machines further transducing virtual representations of external data….blah, blah, blah—all of this is my quaint way of explaining both the elusiveness of qualia (and the variance in brain activity correlated with it—even in the cases where localized areas of the brain are expunged), the raw materials, as it were, of the subjective experience, and also the evolution from those “complex interaction[s]…between system[s] and [their] environment[s]”. However, it seems to me the only way those raw materials could be incorporated into a subjective experience in your model is at the level where “extra information” is needed “to describe how the system relates to itself over space and time (ie self-consciousness). In other words: the threshold beyond which the (aptly called) “subject” emerges. Don’t you think?
    Last edited by Vexspits; March 3rd, 2018 at 11:57 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    physical reality is all about perception
    So you don't actually exist? You are just a mental state of mine? I know I exist, so if reality is nothing but a "perception", then everyone else including you is just my "perception" and doesn't really exist?
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    So you don't actually exist? You are just a mental state of mine? I know I exist, so if reality is nothing but a "perception",
    Physical "reality" is the subjective form of existence. Objective existence is beyond physical perception.

    then everyone else including you is just my "perception" and doesn't really exist?
    Of course. For you, I exist only as strings of letters on your screen. How can you know, that I'm not an AI script?
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; March 3rd, 2018 at 02:48 PM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Hmm….I guess when the thread got so quickly littered with so many remarks, things got a little mixed up. My post was actually directed toward AstralTraveler. I only borrowed that part of our discussion to trash the idea that reality is fully determined by our perceptions and has no independent qualities or features apart from them. As to the final question in your post: I certainly don’t know about some absolute sense in which we could all agree that the experience is "real". I would definitely agree, however, that it can’t be ignored.
    I don't say, that entire reality is fully determined by our perception - I say, that PHYSICAL reality is. That's what the GR is all about: different observers can perceive the reality in different ways - but it's impossible to say, which one perceive it "correctly". That's because objective reality is BEYOND perception.
    You have probably already explained this but: What is “objective reality” again? How do you define it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,781
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Growing in a manner similar to neurons doen't in any way make the universe a "greater mind". What I am demonstrating is skepticism in the face of a bs assertion based on what you want to be true.
    It looks and behaves like a brain... Hmm, what could it be? Mystery...
    It also looks amazingly like a slime mold, that doesnt make us all mold spores.

    It doesnt behave like a neural net, your still letting vs effect your arguments.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    You have probably already explained this but: What is “objective reality” again? How do you define it?
    No, actually I didn't Good question... My definition should be something like:
    Potential existence of all possible states. Superposition of probability. Existence determined by possibility - or something in this kind...
    Generally, everything what might happen in given moment.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    You have probably already explained this but: What is “objective reality” again? How do you define it?
    No, actually I didn't Good question... My definition should be something like:
    Potential existence of all possible states. Superposition of probability. Existence determined by possibility - or something in this kind...
    Generally, everything what might happen in given moment.
    Why have you chosen the words “objective reality” as a label for “what might happen at any given moment”? This just sounds like what we call "the future". Of course that is beyond perception. However, I’m at a loss as to why this unremarkable fact is important to the topic of this thread. Also, how is this role you attribute to consciousness productive in explaining how it emerges? Have I missed something in your posts?
    Last edited by Vexspits; March 3rd, 2018 at 05:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Why have you chosen the words “objective reality” as a label for “what might happen at any given moment”? This just sounds like what we call "the future". Of course that is beyond perception. However, I’m at a loss as to why this unremarkable fact is important to the topic of this thread. Also, how is this role you attribute to consciousness productive in explaining how it emerges? Have I missed something in your posts?
    Because objective reality defines everything, what is physically possible. It's a superposition of all possible solutions - transcendental code of the Universe, which exists simultaneusly for every concious observer.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Because objective reality defines everything, what is physically possible. It's a superposition of all possible solutions - transcendental code of the Universe, which exists simultaneusly for every concious observer.
    Evidence?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

    "Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality."
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,781
    That doesn't support your asinine assertion using a entirely made up "definition" for your made up term
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Objective reality = probability distribution in space = wave function
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,781
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Objective reality = probability distribution in space = wave function
    utter poppycock, that your making up you mean.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexspits View Post
    Typically if I see the word “dualist” in the subject of a sentence offering an explanation of consciousness, I might not even see the predicate! (Lol) I have a similar reaction to the word “entanglement” because I so strongly associate it with quantum mechanics, and in my view, most of the appeals to this field seem like an unnecessary retreat. Your usage of the word “entanglement” is broader.
    Both entanglement and dualism are actually quite general and quite well-defined concepts, and their application in quantum physics and philosophy respectively are just special cases. But you have a point in that most people would not necessarily be aware of this, so I suppose ultimately I will need to invest the time to sit down and actually write out my conjecture properly, with all the necessary definitions etc. But at the moment the idea isn’t developed enough to warrant that effort, because without a mathematical formulation the whole thing is useless. I haven’t gotten that far just yet.

    Note though that I am not a purveyor of any kind of quantum woo; what I conjecture are generalised principles that hold for any system, regardless of whether they are classical or quantum. Generalised entanglement is a well defined concept, but also something that is not necessarily easy to understand or mathematically describe. The other thing is that the real “magic” happens in complex networks of entanglement relationships, so complexity theory will have a role to play as well.

    In other words: the threshold beyond which the (aptly called) “subject” emerges. Don’t you think?
    I think even in the very simple case of two entangled particles, you already have a subject-object relationship - each of the constituents is necessary to define the correlation with the other. It’s just that there is an interesting symmetry in this particular scenario, in that subject and object are freely interchangeable, which isn’t the case in more complex systems.

    Again, it will be necessary to properly define the notions of “subject” and “object”, as for my purposes I am using it in a more general sense than everyday language does.

    All of this is very much a work in progress, and there is always the distinct possibility that a fatal flaw emerges somewhere, in which case it will need to be abandoned or reworked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    You can move from point A to point B in time, but only in one direction - and while you are located in point A, point B doesn't exist physically
    Presumably, while you are at point A, point A exists. But when you are at point B, does point A exist? If not, then you have created an inconsistency because point A in one instance exists and in another instance doesn't exist. The same inconsistency applies to point B... in one instance it exists and in another instance it doesn't exist. The problem with the notion of existence and non-existence that you are using is that it is meaningless in an objective sense. For example, if it is 25°C in my home at this instance in time, then that remains true in the future as well. It is also true in the past even though I didn't know it at the time.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I'm actually NOT a professional physicist. But thank you for thinking that my writing could have been from a professional physicist. I am just an amateur doing this as a hobby.
    That’s interesting I would also have thought that your background is in professional academia.
    I thought you knew. I recall mentioning it a while back though I don't recall if it was to you. Though I'm not a professional physicist, I have studied science at a postgraduate level. But that was organic chemistry rather than physics or even mathematics.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    The main issue with the Many Worlds (multiverse) theory is, that it assumes physical existence beyond perception
    What the many worlds interpretation provides that other interpretations do not is an explanation of how a single outcome appears to be randomly selected. In the Born rule, instead of one eigenvalue being randomly selected over all the others, there is no selection of an eigenvector and all the eigenvectors are on equal footing. But entanglement between the measured quantum state and the brain state of the observer of the measuring device provides the perception of a single outcome being randomly selected as described by the Copenhagen interpretation.

    The many worlds interpretation also provides an explanation of why only a single outcome is perceived. Firstly, macroscopic states are orthogonal due to the high-dimensionality of the many-particle Hilbert space. Secondly, there is no interference between orthogonal states. The absence of interference between orthogonal states means that the alternative macroscopic states behave independently of each other. Thus, the observers of one macroscopic state cannot perceive any other macroscopic state as there is no interaction between the different versions of the observer.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Both entanglement and dualism are actually quite general and quite well-defined concepts, and their application in quantum physics and philosophy respectively are just special cases. But you have a point in that most people would not necessarily be aware of this, so I suppose ultimately I will need to invest the time to sit down and actually write out my conjecture properly, with all the necessary definitions etc. But at the moment the idea isn’t developed enough to warrant that effort, because without a mathematical formulation the whole thing is useless. I haven’t gotten that far just yet.

    Note though that I am not a purveyor of any kind of quantum woo; what I conjecture are generalised principles that hold for any system, regardless of whether they are classical or quantum. Generalised entanglement is a well defined concept, but also something that is not necessarily easy to understand or mathematically describe. The other thing is that the real “magic” happens in complex networks of entanglement relationships, so complexity theory will have a role to play as well.

    I think even in the very simple case of two entangled particles, you already have a subject-object relationship - each of the constituents is necessary to define the correlation with the other. It’s just that there is an interesting symmetry in this particular scenario, in that subject and object are freely interchangeable, which isn’t the case in more complex systems.

    Again, it will be necessary to properly define the notions of “subject” and “object”, as for my purposes I am using it in a more general sense than everyday language does.

    All of this is very much a work in progress, and there is always the distinct possibility that a fatal flaw emerges somewhere, in which case it will need to be abandoned or reworked.
    Understood (very well articulated, by the way). I listened to an episode of a science radio-show called Radiolab [(https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/91684) fast forward to 43:30 if you are interested] on which the science writer, Carl Zimmer, granted e coli bacteria the status of “creatures”, because they “sense their world”, “make decisions”, “feed and reproduce” etc. That last segment featuring Zimmer presents the dilemma of how the “sloppy”, seemingly random ways in which the genes of the various e coli "turn-on" proteins can result in ordered structures on a much larger scale. It inspired me to search the net for anything related to the subject; one of the articles I came across was from a magazine called Wired https://www.wired.com/2008/04/the-mo...we-understand/ The language in which the description of e coli is couched is so much like your descriptions of consciousness I felt compelled to send it your way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    The language in which the description of e coli is couched is so much like your descriptions of consciousness I felt compelled to send it your way.
    Yes, it is notable that an E. coli bacterium behaves a little like a conscious entity, despite the fact that it does not possess anything even remotely resembling a central nervous system. Of course within my framework this is not a surprise, since there is a consciousness associated with the bacterium-environment system - owing to the fact that I see consciousness not as a “thing” residing in a particular biological structure, but as a network of entanglement relationships between the bacterium and its surrounds. It is therefore an intrinsically non-local phenomenon.

    I reiterate again that under this point of view, consciousness is not a binary concept (“either conscious or not”), but a fluid scale of degrees; the E.coli would score quite low on this scale, but not zero (in fact, this scale would not have a zero point).

    There should be a way to mathematically quantify this, by means of looking at the ways a system can be entangled with its surrounds. Some notion of “generalised entanglement degrees of freedom”, if you so will. While the general principle is simple enough to understand, I think the mathematical treatment would be quite complex, since it would depend in some way on the internal structure and complexity of the two networks (subject and object, e.g. observer and environment). Right now I haven’t the foggiest idea how to approach this, but it’s something I am thinking about. Given a mathematical description, the whole idea would open itself up to possible scientific testing, as it should be. Without that, it’s just wild speculation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,139
    Changing gears a bit. Maybe too far fetched.

    Consciously I am aware of myself standing on a beach. Likewise I'm also aware of a beautiful seashell at my feet. Consciously I make the decision to pick it up. By lifting it I have consciously moved matter. Does that make consciousness a force? If so, would it be a fundamental force that's been with this universe since time began?

    I understand that natural forces put the seashell at my feet but I would categorize those actions as being accomplished without consciousness. I also understand that my actions could also be considered natural and that I can move matter unconsciously as in breathing for example.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,483
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Changing gears a bit. Maybe too far fetched.

    Consciously I am aware of myself standing on a beach. Likewise I'm also aware of a beautiful seashell at my feet. Consciously I make the decision to pick it up. By lifting it I have consciously moved matter. Does that make consciousness a force? If so, would it be a fundamental force that's been with this universe since time began?

    I understand that natural forces put the seashell at my feet but I would categorize those actions as being accomplished without consciousness. I also understand that my actions could also be considered natural and that I can move matter unconsciously as in breathing for example.
    Does seem far fetched but looked at in reverse ,where is the boundary between the "conscious force" and the object moved.?
    If your seashell movement was the first in a domino effect that enabled you to achieve an action "beyond" the movement of the seashell ,is the seashell effectively a part of your body?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,139
    Does seem far fetched but looked at in reverse ,where is the boundary between the "conscious force" and the object moved.?

    If your seashell movement was the first in a domino effect that enabled you to achieve an action "beyond" the movement of the seashell ,is the seashell effectively a part of your body?
    I'm probably the worst philosopher there is but.....

    Maybe there's a distinction between causing natural movement of matter and a conscious effort effectively doing the same. Maybe the boundary lies in the subjective, I think therefore I move matter. I mentioned a beautiful seashell and perhaps to understand beauty more thoroughly I felt compelled via a conscious thought to examine the shell, so picking it up was a way to do it.

    I don't think the seashell is a part of me but like myself, is a component of the universe. Maybe we shared an atom during my lifetime. Then again if we're all components of the same thing .......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,483
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Does seem far fetched but looked at in reverse ,where is the boundary between the "conscious force" and the object moved.?

    If your seashell movement was the first in a domino effect that enabled you to achieve an action "beyond" the movement of the seashell ,is the seashell effectively a part of your body?
    I'm probably the worst philosopher there is but.....

    Maybe there's a distinction between causing natural movement of matter and a conscious effort effectively doing the same. Maybe the boundary lies in the subjective, I think therefore I move matter. I mentioned a beautiful seashell and perhaps to understand beauty more thoroughly I felt compelled via a conscious thought to examine the shell, so picking it up was a way to do it.

    I don't think the seashell is a part of me but like myself, is a component of the universe. Maybe we shared an atom during my lifetime. Then again if we're all components of the same thing .......
    I am quite happy with my acceptance that consciousness is built into the universe

    If one counters by pointing out that it is seemingly seemingly lifeless(="consciousness less" )everywhere we look then I will say that consciousness will emerge anywhere in time (an act of intellectual faith ** but I don't feel the burden of proof)

    I think I avoid the distinction between consciousness and "dumb matter ness" at the fundamental level.

    I don't talk to the rocks but ,wait long enough(the age of the universe or longer-or perhaps just the time for AI to get established as an "independent" phenomenon) and I would have to.

    It turns out apparently that all our "conscious"decisions have already been taken by our unconscious decision making process and yet (I assume) we still cling to this idea that we are the master of our own ship....a necessary delusion I imagine.

    **does "an act of intellectual faith" make sense as a concept? Very few instances of the phrase in google:
    1 by Andre Malraux (so good company ,I guess) but
    (2) the other from some theologian Alejandro García-Rivera whose intellectual company I guess I would a priori eschew)
    Last edited by geordief; March 10th, 2018 at 01:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Presumably, while you are at point A, point A exists. But when you are at point B, does point A exist? If not, then you have created an inconsistency because point A in one instance exists and in another instance doesn't exist. The same inconsistency applies to point B... in one instance it exists and in another instance it doesn't exist. The problem with the notion of existence and non-existence that you are using is that it is meaningless in an objective sense. For example, if it is 25°C in my home at this instance in time, then that remains true in the future as well. It is also true in the past even though I didn't know it at the time.
    It might be true in the future, but it doesn't have to be. You can for example open the window and change the temperature inside your home - Universe has to consider the changes, caused by your actions in the present moment. There are only 2 options - the future has to be completely determined and you don't have any influence on the order of upcoming events or it has to be undetermined and your Free Will has direct influence on the physical reality...

    What the many worlds interpretation provides that other interpretations do not is an explanation of how a single outcome appears to be randomly selected. In the Born rule, instead of one eigenvalue being randomly selected over all the others, there is no selection of an eigenvector and all the eigenvectors are on equal footing. But entanglement between the measured quantum state and the brain state of the observer of the measuring device provides the perception of a single outcome being randomly selected as described by the Copenhagen interpretation.

    The many worlds interpretation also provides an explanation of why only a single outcome is perceived. Firstly, macroscopic states are orthogonal due to the high-dimensionality of the many-particle Hilbert space. Secondly, there is no interference between orthogonal states. The absence of interference between orthogonal states means that the alternative macroscopic states behave independently of each other. Thus, the observers of one macroscopic state cannot perceive any other macroscopic state as there is no interaction between the different versions of the observer.
    Problem is, that there IS interaction between different macroscopic states. For example take a bat and and owl - both observe the same reality in completely different ways, but each interaction with the environment will be observed by both animals.

    Although we can't directly observe the objective reality, there has to be interaction between the Concious Mind and the environment. Each action leaves a pernament mark in the "code of Universe". This is why we can get the information about past events, by tracking the cause/effect relation. For example, by moving an object in the physical reality, you change the information about it's location in space.

    I think about the objective reality, as about an engine code in a MMORPG game. Every player observe the virtual environment in a different way (depending on the hardware of a computer), but all observe the same reality. The code is beyond perception, however there's a constant interaction between the players and the virtual world...
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; March 10th, 2018 at 01:38 PM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    I don't think the seashell is a part of me but like myself, is a component of the universe. Maybe we shared an atom during my lifetime. Then again if we're all components of the same thing .......
    Exactly! Everything - including Conciousness - is a part of Universe. We can't ignore the influence of our actions on the reality in which we all exist. I think, that everything exist because of the constant process of information exchange. Particles of matter exchange the information about their properties with the rest of environment and with all the Concious Minds, which interact with them. I believe, that Universe is absolutely aware of itself - just as we all are aware of our own existence. I know, that my beliefs are considered by 99% of professional scientists, as a total heresy, but I don't care too much...
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; March 10th, 2018 at 01:51 PM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    I am quite happy with my acceptance that consciousness is built into the universe

    If one counters by pointing out that it is seemingly seemingly lifeless(="consciousness less" )everywhere we look then I will say that consciousness will emerge anywhere in time (an act of intellectual faith ** but I don't feel the burden of proof).
    I go even further - I believe, that Conciousness is the only thing, there is. But faith is not based on proofs...

    I think I avoid the distinction between consciousness and "dumb matter ness" at the fundamental level.

    I don't talk to the rocks but ,wait long enough(the age of the universe or longer-or perhaps just the time for AI to get established as an "independent" phenomenon) and I would have to.

    It turns out apparently that all our "conscious"decisions have already been taken by our unconscious decision making process and yet (I assume) we still cling to this idea that we are the master of our own ship....a necessary delusion I imagine.
    Just thinking about your own actions, proves that you are the master of your own ship. You have the ability to predict the effects of your decisions and you can choose one of possible options - this is not a delusion, but the greatest Truth, there is. Universe allows us to act, according to our Will...
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Just thinking about your own actions, proves that you are the master of your own ship.
    Only to a limited extent.

    You have the ability to predict the effects of your decisions
    To a limited extent.

    this is not a delusion, but the greatest Truth, there is.
    Balls.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Just thinking about your own actions, proves that you are the master of your own ship.
    Only to a limited extent.
    Being a master of a ship doesn't mean, that you can control the weather or change the wind direction. You can however predict, in which direction your ship is sailing

    You have the ability to predict the effects of your decisions
    To a limited extent.
    Of course, you would have to be omniscient, to have a full control over your actions. But still, we are able to predict a possible outcome of our decisions
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; March 10th, 2018 at 08:15 PM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,646
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Universe allows us to act, according to our Will...
    Or maybe it just gives us the illusion we are doing that.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Universe allows us to act, according to our Will...
    Or maybe it just gives us the illusion we are doing that.
    Maybe illusions (imperfect perceptions) is all there is. Illusions could be the "new reality" and reality the new illusion. Or maybe not

    Perhaps we are all victims of confirmation bias in all our thoughts and actions. Can you name anyone who could not be so described?

    Churchill's "blood sweat and tears" speech?

    Are we only really conscious when pushed to the edge?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,139
    Are we only really conscious when pushed to the edge?
    I'll give you something more extreme and outlandish than that, only problem is I've always hesitated to say this because people will think what I'm saying is true or that I believe it wholeheartedly. Also hate feeding the religious/trolls but this is philosophy and this is a science forum so here goes..... What if the most basic elementary particle not only maintains a wave/particle duality but a conscious element as well? Call it a tripartite system if you will (did not want to use trilogy here) I do think however that if consciousness has existed since time/universe began then perhaps proponents might use something like this or similar to explain it.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Presumably, while you are at point A, point A exists. But when you are at point B, does point A exist? If not, then you have created an inconsistency because point A in one instance exists and in another instance doesn't exist. The same inconsistency applies to point B... in one instance it exists and in another instance it doesn't exist. The problem with the notion of existence and non-existence that you are using is that it is meaningless in an objective sense. For example, if it is 25°C in my home at this instance in time, then that remains true in the future as well. It is also true in the past even though I didn't know it at the time.
    It might be true in the future, but it doesn't have to be. You can for example open the window and change the temperature inside your home
    Actually, it does have to be. Opening a window doesn't change the temperature at the instant when the temperature was 25°C. Using another example, that Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941 is as true today as it was on December 7, 1941.


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    There are only 2 options - the future has to be completely determined and you don't have any influence on the order of upcoming events or it has to be undetermined and your Free Will has direct influence on the physical reality..
    These are not the only options as both of them assume a single future. In the many worlds interpretation, there are many distinct futures and all of them are determined. However, since we only perceive a single distinct future, we can't determine which one of the many possible distinct futures we will perceive.


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    What the many worlds interpretation provides that other interpretations do not is an explanation of how a single outcome appears to be randomly selected. In the Born rule, instead of one eigenvalue being randomly selected over all the others, there is no selection of an eigenvector and all the eigenvectors are on equal footing. But entanglement between the measured quantum state and the brain state of the observer of the measuring device provides the perception of a single outcome being randomly selected as described by the Copenhagen interpretation.

    The many worlds interpretation also provides an explanation of why only a single outcome is perceived. Firstly, macroscopic states are orthogonal due to the high-dimensionality of the many-particle Hilbert space. Secondly, there is no interference between orthogonal states. The absence of interference between orthogonal states means that the alternative macroscopic states behave independently of each other. Thus, the observers of one macroscopic state cannot perceive any other macroscopic state as there is no interaction between the different versions of the observer.
    Problem is, that there IS interaction between different macroscopic states. For example take a bat and and owl - both observe the same reality in completely different ways, but each interaction with the environment will be observed by both animals.
    I don't see how this relates to what I said. By "different macroscopic states", I mean the different possible outcomes of a single experiment. For example, suppose a physicist measures whether the spin-state of the electron is up or down. The measurement is performed using a macroscopic device whose outcome state is a macroscopic state that indicates the measured spin-state of the electron. That the measurement of a microscopic state leads to distinct macroscopic states is crucial to what a measurement is. The physicist observes the macroscopic state of the measuring device. One version of the physicist observes the measuring device indicating an up-state for the electron while another version of the physicist observes the measuring device indicating a down-state for the electron. But there is no interaction between these two versions of the physicist so each version of the physicist only observes either the measuring device indicating an up-state for the electron or the measuring device indicating a down-state for the electron.


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    I think about the objective reality, as about an engine code in a MMORPG game. Every player observe the virtual environment in a different way (depending on the hardware of a computer), but all observe the same reality. The code is beyond perception, however there's a constant interaction between the players and the virtual world.
    I think a better way is to think of reality (the multiverse) as like all the sculptures that exist within a block of marble before the sculptor starts.


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Although we can't directly observe the objective reality, there has to be interaction between the Concious Mind and the environment. Each action leaves a pernament mark in the "code of Universe". This is why we can get the information about past events, by tracking the cause/effect relation. For example, by moving an object in the physical reality, you change the information about it's location in space.
    My view of this is quite the opposite. That is, we exist in the particular version of reality (the universe) in which we behave in the particular way that we are behaving, and if we behave any differently, it is because we exist in a different version of reality, the version corresponding to our different behaviour.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Actually, it does have to be. Opening a window doesn't change the temperature at the instant, when the temperature was 25°C
    And who said, that the change has to be instant (although it probably will be in the micro-scale)?
    In the micro-scale each your movement affects the circulation of air in your home and changes locally the temperature.
    . Using another example, that Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941 is as true today as it was on December 7, 1941.
    Is just as true as the salad, which I was eating yesterday - a simple memory (or something worse, but much more material )
    What do you understand, as "true"? It's true, that we are living in an interesting period of time... "True" doesn't mean "physical".

    These are not the only options as both of them assume a single future. In the many worlds interpretation, there are many distinct futures and all of them are determined. However, since we only perceive a single distinct future, we can't determine which one of the many possible distinct futures we will perceive.
    Of course, we still can try to determine, which possible outcome from our future, will be perceived by us. It will be the most possible one.
    Many worlds theory is just a plain speculation - not better, than my own.
    Is there any physical proof, that there's any other point in time, which is just as material and determined, as the current moment, which we experience physically?
    Didn't think so...

    I don't see how this relates to what I said. By "different macroscopic states", I mean the different possible outcomes of a single experiment. For example, suppose a physicist measures whether the spin-state of the electron is up or down. The measurement is performed using a macroscopic device whose outcome state is a macroscopic state that indicates the measured spin-state of the electron. That the measurement of a microscopic state leads to distinct macroscopic states is crucial to what a measurement is. The physicist observes the macroscopic state of the measuring device. One version of the physicist observes the measuring device indicating an up-state for the electron while another version of the physicist observes the measuring device indicating a down-state for the electron. But there is no interaction between these two versions of the physicist so each version of the physicist only observes either the measuring device indicating an up-state for the electron or the measuring device indicating a down-state for the electron.
    Macroscopic state, of a microscopic property is just a "translation" of the received data.
    I have a better experiment. There are 2 independent scientists, which will measure the spin orientation of a single electron, one after another. First scientist measures the spin orientation and collapses the wave function into a determined state. If there won't be any other measurements of different properties of this electron, second scientist, which will measure the orientation of spin after some time, will get the same result, as the first one.

    Measure a different property of this electron and both scientists can get completely different results.

    The measuring device is just a medium, which allows the transfer of information from micro- to macroscale

    I think a better way is to think of reality (the multiverse) as like all the sculptures that exist within a block of marble before the sculptor starts.
    Beautiful analogy - I really like it. But isn't it a completely metaphysical concept? Maybe everything, what an artist do, when he shapes the block of marble, is to physically express it's true form?
    What is art? It's a transcendental idea, expressed in a physical form... Well, maybe not the modern art...

    My view of this is quite the opposite. That is, we exist in the particular version of reality (the universe) in which we behave in the particular way that we are behaving, and if we behave any differently, it is because we exist in a different version of reality, the version corresponding to our different behaviour.
    So you think, that you exist physically in a different version of reality - and by YOU, I mean YOU, as an independent point of reference, which is aware of own existence...?

    Well, I'm pretty sure, that I exist only here and only now. If there's some other version of me in some hypothetical reality, then it's not me. Single Conciousness can't exist in two alternative realities simultaneusly (if we forget about some serious mental issues).

    And what, if an alternative version of me will have a different opinion, than empirical me?
    How many alternatives there are for each of your actions?

    Why someone needs to assume, that there's some other physical existence, which is beyond the perception. If something can't be perceived, it can't be physical
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; March 11th, 2018 at 03:20 PM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Is there any physical proof, that there's any other point in time, which is just as material and determined, as the current moment, which we experience physically?
    Yes. When I looked at the world around me yesterday, it was just as physically real as the world around me is today. A photograph of yesterday's world would be physical proof if my eye-witness account is not enough. The only difference between yesterday's world and today's world is that I'm not currently at yesterday's world. But surely you do not have to be at a location in order for that location to be physically real?


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Macroscopic state, of a microscopic property is just a "translation" of the received data.
    ...
    The measuring device is just a medium, which allows the transfer of information from micro- to macroscale
    No. You are understating what a measuring device actually does. It is the measuring device that actually interacts with the quantum system. It is the measuring device that actually responds differently to the particular different microscopic states. It is the measuring device that has to be specifically designed to measure the particular property of the microscopic system (a measuring device that measures spin is not the same device as the measuring device that measures position). The human observer (consciousness) plays no role in performing the measurement of the microscopic state other than to observe the measuring device. In particular, it is the measuring device that determines the microscopic property being measured, not the human observer (consciousness).


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    I have a better experiment. There are 2 independent scientists, which will measure the spin orientation of a single electron, one after another. First scientist measures the spin orientation and collapses the wave function into a determined state. If there won't be any other measurements of different properties of this electron, second scientist, which will measure the orientation of spin after some time, will get the same result, as the first one.
    Why is this a better experiment? What is the point of this experiment with regards to the current discussion?


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Measure a different property of this electron and both scientists can get completely different results.
    If two scientists are measuring different properties of an electron, why would you expect them to get the same result? I measure the mass of a ball, my neighbour measures the colour of the same ball. I obtain a result of "500 grams", my neighbour obtains a result of "RED". Is it really surprising that these two results are different?


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    If something can't be perceived, it can't be physical
    Really??? Can you perceive the centre of the moon? the sun at night? X-rays? other people's consciousness?
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    What if the most basic elementary particle not only maintains a wave/particle duality but a conscious element as well?
    This idea is called “Panpsychism”.
    I find the concept interesting, but I would argue that consciousness is not an inherent property of an isolated object/system, but rather found in how it is entangled with its environment.

    Just a personal conjecture, though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,483
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

    Is there an important distinction between form and content?

    Matter has the property of self organization. Why is this so ?

    Is it possible to conceive of a universe where matter is and remains amorphous ,without pattern? (clearly not ours)

    Is that property a precursor to life and consciousness?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Is there an important distinction between form and content?
    Of course. Trivial example - a human body (form) may appear very appealing to us from the outside. But cut it open, and you will find that it is just a bag of skin filled with all manner of wet, squishy, slimy, unattractive things (content). Another trivial example - the words “tea” and “茶“have a very different form, but the same content.

    Matter has the property of self organization. Why is this so ?
    I would disagree that it does. It is not matter itself that has this tendency, but rather the dynamics of interacting matter particles. That is so because these systems are not completely random, but governed by dynamics that exhibit chaotic behaviour, hence giving rise to regular patterns. Essentially the self-organisation happens because there are laws of physics in place which restrict the possibilities for dynamic evolution of a system; they limit the ways that these particles can interact.

    Is it possible to conceive of a universe where matter is and remains amorphous ,without pattern?
    That would need to be a universe that is filled with particles that do not interact in any way, shape, or form. Just a uniform distribution of non-interacting (and hence necessarily elementary) particles.

    Is that property a precursor to life and consciousness?
    Life yes, because that requires the emergence of patterns. As for consciousness, I don’t know, that is up for debate. Personally I’d say no, because consciousness is clearly more than something random and unordered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    Is it possible to conceive of a universe where matter is and remains amorphous ,without pattern?
    That would need to be a universe that is filled with particles that do not interact in any way, shape, or form. Just a uniform distribution of non-interacting (and hence necessarily elementary) particles.
    Is that conceivable? Could that be described as a "dumb universe"?
    Last edited by geordief; March 13th, 2018 at 08:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Is that conceivable? Could that be described as a "dumb universe"?
    It is conceivable, but probably only in principle. I’m not sure what you mean by “dumb” - it would just be a world that contains no higher-order patterns of any kind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Is that conceivable? Could that be described as a "dumb universe"?
    It is conceivable, but probably only in principle. I’m not sure what you mean by “dumb” - it would just be a world that contains no higher-order patterns of any kind.
    Yes it is a word (in this context) searching for a definition (a bit cheeky but ,well language does evolve)

    Such a universe would be a bit like the Sargasso Sea writ large

    All Dressed Up (With Nowhere To Go)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhAOlAq_9ME

    (can't seem to make that youtube link clickable no matter what I do to it.... no big deal)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Yes. When I looked at the world around me yesterday, it was just as physically real as the world around me is today. A photograph of yesterday's world would be physical proof if my eye-witness account is not enough.
    You can go to moon and see the Earth. But can you see yourself from 2 seconds ago?
    There's simply no physical way to "peek" into any other time, beyond the present moment - so, there's nothing, what would allow us to assume, that time exists physically beyond real-time.

    The only difference between yesterday's world and today's world is that I'm not currently at yesterday's world.
    And can you speak with someone, who's living in yesterday's world?
    I can speak with someone, who's on opposite side of the globe - because he's still placed in the same time, as I am...

    But surely you do not have to be at a location in order for that location to be physically real?
    Yes, you have to - only then it's physically real FOR YOU...

    No. You are understating what a measuring device actually does. It is the measuring device that actually interacts with the quantum system. It is the measuring device that actually responds differently to the particular different microscopic states. It is the measuring device that has to be specifically designed to measure the particular property of the microscopic system (a measuring device that measures spin is not the same device as the measuring device that measures position). The human observer (consciousness) plays no role in performing the measurement of the microscopic state other than to observe the measuring device. In particular, it is the measuring device that determines the microscopic property being measured, not the human observer (consciousness).
    Scientist can push the on/off button on the measuring device and affect the behavior of electron in double slit experiment.

    If two scientists are measuring different properties of an electron, why would you expect them to get the same result? I measure the mass of a ball, my neighbour measures the colour of the same ball. I obtain a result of "500 grams", my neighbour obtains a result of "RED". Is it really surprising that these two results are different?
    Not different property. First one measures the spin, then another measurement is taken and when a second scientist measures the spin, he can get a totally different result, than the first one

    Really??? Can you perceive the centre of the moon? the sun at night? X-rays? other people's consciousness?
    Theoretically you can, using somekind of device (sonar for example). Satellites observe the Sun 24h/day. Conciousness is not physical - so we can't use it as example in this case. Point is, that you perceive the moon, as it is currently - and not, as it was 2 days ago, or couple hours in the future...
    Reccordings of the past events do not represent the actual and current state of physical reality.
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; March 14th, 2018 at 02:09 PM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    This guy is a former professor of physics on University of Oregon - so, he probably knows, what he's talking about...
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,139
    But can you see yourself from 2 seconds ago?
    I suppose I could take a selfie photo or video but when I check out the CMBE I can't help but think that I'm in that panoramic view somewhere yet something else tells me I'm not, I'm just part of the view of the CMBE for some other observer. So I'm going to ask the experts, am I (or at least what I once was) a part of the observed CMBE?

    Back to consciousness.... my dictionary's definition of a field in physics:

    theregion in which a particular condition prevails, especially one in which a force or influence is effective regardless of the presence or absence of a material medium.

    I'm imagining particles interacting with a consciousness field, indigenous to this universe since the first nanosecond. How big this field is, is anybody's guess. In my imagination, perhaps some particles are more conducive to gaining the consciousness property than others as they pass through the field or when the field passes them by, like that Star Trek episode where a gigantic ribbon of energy aimlessly roams the universe affecting everything it comes in contact with.

    Again....just my imagination folks. Philosophy seems to be the safest avenue for imaginative thought to travel
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; March 14th, 2018 at 02:56 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Consciousness
    By Shenron in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 1st, 2013, 07:23 AM
  2. Consciousness
    By cookiejr in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 30th, 2013, 11:05 AM
  3. consciousness
    By dolphinbubble in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 21st, 2010, 05:56 AM
  4. Consciousness
    By SuperNatendo in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 24th, 2008, 04:17 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •