- #31
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
I say no, but I don't think anything in this universe is physical.
Can existence outside of the physical world be defined and discussed?
- Thread starter Loren Booda
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Physical
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of observers in relation to physicality, with participants debating whether observers must be physical entities. Many argue that since the universe is fundamentally physical, any observer must also be physical to interact with it. The conversation touches on quantum mechanics, suggesting that the act of observation influences physical outcomes, raising questions about the definition of "observer." Some participants propose that if a non-physical observer existed, it would be irrelevant to physical interactions and thus cannot be defined within the physical universe. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the belief that all observers must be physical, as non-physical entities cannot be measured or interacted with in a physical context.
- #32
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
Loren Booda said:
The physical parameter that defines an observer as being physical is that they experience anything whatsoever. When they experience enough curiosity to question whether they're physical or not there is a high probablity they are. If they weren't physical there'd be no question about it.
Its like asking if the light on the train tracks is a train coming or if its some joker with a flashlight. Either way, its a light, and those are train tracks.
The main reason I voted yes is because, as a reference, I consider my position on the spectrum of scale to be physical. By saying reference I also refer to the fact that, in decided terms I am defined as physical by the physical sciences and I accept that definition as much as I accept other basic concepts like "sunrise" "heartbeat" "water" "breathing" and "life".
These concepts and terminologies and the concept that the observer is physical are tools we use to study and describe our universe and therefore they are the terms that indicate my relation to other densities in my proximity.
The idea that the observer is physical is a simple form of categorization. Categorization is useful in helping to distiguish observed categories and the differences between categories. These "pidgeonholes" tend to form a common or standard knowledge that is easier to be gathered and shared amongst a community of scientists and others. This builds a community awareness and an ability to progress for the people of that community.
Anyone who really believes they're not physical wouldn't eat and would definitely try to walk through speeding trains and across the atlantic. Any no voters doin' much of that these days?
I'd say the observer is pretty close to "not physical" when he/she's observing some Galactic Warrior slash his character to bits on an LCD screen that's in front of his couch for 9 hours.
- #33
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
Well ...Being that I am on the other side of the coin. I.E. the other alternative (conceptual reality rather than physical). Why is it that Physical reality must follow certain rules, while conceptual reality does not? Why is it that the concept me somehow has the ability to walk through a concept wall, while the physical me can't walk through a physical wall? Why can't Conceptual reality have the same rules as your choice (physical realty)?
- #34
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
Castlegate said:
Conceptual reality is governed by a rule that is deeply rooted in physical reality. In order to conceptualize any reality whatsoever you apparently need a physical brain. Try having your brain removed and get back to us on whether or not you are still experiencing a concept of reality/no reality etc... (conceptually speaking)
- #35
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
quantumcarl said:
What I was getting at is that the universe as a whole is not a physical entity. That would include someones brain.Thats right - your brain is a conceptual entity. Same as a rock.
- #36
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
Castlegate said:
Is this something one discovers after a brainectomy!?
Is this a concept cooked up by the (very physical) brain in your head?
What brain has actually experienced the "whole universe" in order to be able to support your statement?
- #37
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
I love a skeptic.quantumcarl said:
Think that your brain is not made up of bits of matter separated by nothing at all, but rather forms of nothing at all that act in accordance with conceptual laws. Your overall experience is the same, but your approach to it is completely different.
- #38
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
Castlegate said:
I disagree.
Concepts are what our brain uses to describe the sensory data it receives.
Conceptualization creates an illusion for people who can't handle the reality of the universe in its raw form... which is pure, unadulterated energy and (perhaps) the lack thereof.
- #39
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
And that energy is no more than geometric entities composed of nothing at all. They move in accordance to conceptual laws. Sounds like a plan.quantumcarl said:
- #40
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
Castlegate said:
These are your personal concepts. This is a result of a physical, biological brain trying to make sense of the unknown.
Castlegate said:
Sounds like religion.
Last edited:
- #41
Rader
- 765
- 0
Loren Booda said:
You should read this paper
Gao Shan
http://cogprints.org/2550/01/qtec.PDF
- #42
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
Yes, the observer is physical.
"Are Observer's Physical?"
Observation requires a distinction between what is observed and the observer. The distinction is a separation and separation denotes a relative, physical quality (by definition... ie. "space between").
When there is observation there is separation and if there is separation between what is being observed and the observer then both are physical... by definition.
Further to that, the act of observing is a physical act. It does not take place without neurotransmitters, synapses, dendritic connections and axions, sodium/potassium pumps, osmosis and a slew of other physical functions, actions and attributes.
Once again, the question provides its own answer.
"Are Observer's Physical?"
Observation requires a distinction between what is observed and the observer. The distinction is a separation and separation denotes a relative, physical quality (by definition... ie. "space between").
When there is observation there is separation and if there is separation between what is being observed and the observer then both are physical... by definition.
Further to that, the act of observing is a physical act. It does not take place without neurotransmitters, synapses, dendritic connections and axions, sodium/potassium pumps, osmosis and a slew of other physical functions, actions and attributes.
Once again, the question provides its own answer.
- #43
Castlegate
- 119
- 0
Since it is obvious that you are so sure of yourself. It is beyond dificult to get you to entertain any other possibilities. In that vain my message to you is a purely physical one.quantumcarl said:"Are Observer's Physical?"
Observation requires a distinction between what is observed and the observer. The distinction is a separation and separation denotes a relative, physical quality (by definition... ie. "space between").
When there is observation there is separation and if there is separation between what is being observed and the observer then both are physical... by definition.
Further to that, the act of observing is a physical act. It does not take place without neurotransmitters, synapses, dendritic connections and axions, sodium/potassium pumps, osmosis and a slew of other physical functions, actions and attributes.
Once again, the question provides its own answer.
I'm curious as to what physical characteristics (thought) has.
- #44
sameandnot
- 301
- 0
depends, right?castlegate said:
increase/decrease seratonin, alter testosterone/estrogen, altered state of physicality as well as mentality (they are not as different as one tends to think.).
thoughts i have also affect other people. which is to say that thoughts are not only characteristic of physcial conditions, and viceversa, but also that they are not private (strictly speaking). my thoughts about "you" do affect the totality of the "play of physicality", or the "dance of the physical".
is there a difference between 1-, 2-, 3-dimensional characterstics and 4-dimensional characteristics? in other words, to see something, statically, in a 3-dimenmsional state, surely offers the "observer" and particular kind of "physical" characteristics; can we measure affections in 4-dimensions and thereby denote physical charactersitics to something that was hitherto conceived as "non-physical"?
science, it seems, for the most part, has looked at the world, almost strictly, from the 3-dimensional perspective. that is, they "saw" things, (were able to account for things consisting of particular masses and volumes and what-not) and then attributed the affects of time on them.
can science be done from a perspective that is wholly integrated into the 4th dimension? and is not restricted to labeling reality on the basis of a 3-dimensional perspective?
i think that for all of my lack of clarity and precision, the idea is valuable. especially when we are trying to determine what is "physical" and what is "not physical"?
(mind fart: photons are not massive, but they are considered physical. what makes them different from a thought?)
- #45
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
sameandnot said:
Castlegate should get an idea of how I would answer his last question from reading sameandnot's post here.
Thoughts are a result of the synaptic firing of neurons. The neurons fire either because of interal stiimulus or because of external stimulus.
Internal stimulus can be anything from chemical processes in the stomache (hunger), to hormonal activity to the production of certain proteins by DNA strands.
External stimulus can range from EM waves created by thoughts being generated in other organisms (like humans) and the events caused by those thoughts... such as architecture, wars, music ad infinitum... as well as other natural occurances like spinning galaxies and EM frequencies of the sun (light) and other waves etc...
If there is such a state as "non-physical" it is difficult for us to see it or even to imagine it because we are physical in the sense that our observations are made from a juxtopposing position to things "non-physical" where energy (a physical attribute) is manifest as physical matter.
People try to conceive of "non-physical" but that's like a fish trying to conceive of living on land in open air in the rain. Rather difficult and, to any self respecting fish, absurd.
- #46
nk
- 1
- 0
Oververs are Both, physical AND Platonic
Physical Observers:
Axioms:
(1) Conservation of energy is true.
(2) "Nothing Exists" is self contradictory. There is no physical or spiritual / platonic notion like "nothing exists" by virtue of the very fact that it is being cognized. Implying it's statement itself requires something to exist and hence "nothing exists" cannot be.
Our Universe exists due to a consciousness and one such entiy is sufficent and nessesary.(C)
It's proof cannot be as it is being assumed as an Axiom. This is not evasion or inability to prove, but appeals to yourselves to honestly report the following: When(if) you were sedated until your Mind no longer was "conscious" where did the consciousness "go" if it contained energy? By conservation of energy it should have remained and you shouldd have the memories of the ensuing surgical operation or whatever, but did you?. In sleep we either have dreams or we do not. In either case do we retain consciousness when it is used in the usual common sense? Al we might recall are dreams which are thoughts and since thoughts have energy their perfect / imperfect recall from memory buffers (called engrams I beleive) recalls. Thus Mind is the occasion (energy sensing neural networks) for manifesting thoughts and Consciousness is the enrgyless "soul". Finally, consciousness is normal states if the awareness of the Minds collective thoughts (electromagnetic waves of different amplitutes and frequencies interfeering). In short consciousness is aware of Mind affect.
Proof:
Using above axioms symbology.
Kindly ignore words like Reincarnation as it belittles the proof by virtue of existing unproven Beliefs. If it helps, I might add that I am an "Aetheist of sorts" and Yet have proven the existence of a sentient being, which is popularly called god / God/ Whatever. I am unware as to which category I belong and honestly I do not wish to be "categorised" into any "---ist" or "--ism" as is implicated when capatilism and communism and Aetheist, and Agnotic et.
Content: http://www.geocities.com/iit_bpd1962/Reincarnate/reincarnate.html
Q.E.D
Case B: If Consciousness is energyless then it exists even in the lack of enrgy presence. Thisw has to be otherwise Universe could not have been extant when no observers existed, which means energy itself is created upon the realization of consciousness. Only a "god" can do this !
Thanks.
nk
Physical Observers:
Axioms:
(1) Conservation of energy is true.
(2) "Nothing Exists" is self contradictory. There is no physical or spiritual / platonic notion like "nothing exists" by virtue of the very fact that it is being cognized. Implying it's statement itself requires something to exist and hence "nothing exists" cannot be.
Our Universe exists due to a consciousness and one such entiy is sufficent and nessesary.(C)
It's proof cannot be as it is being assumed as an Axiom. This is not evasion or inability to prove, but appeals to yourselves to honestly report the following: When(if) you were sedated until your Mind no longer was "conscious" where did the consciousness "go" if it contained energy? By conservation of energy it should have remained and you shouldd have the memories of the ensuing surgical operation or whatever, but did you?. In sleep we either have dreams or we do not. In either case do we retain consciousness when it is used in the usual common sense? Al we might recall are dreams which are thoughts and since thoughts have energy their perfect / imperfect recall from memory buffers (called engrams I beleive) recalls. Thus Mind is the occasion (energy sensing neural networks) for manifesting thoughts and Consciousness is the enrgyless "soul". Finally, consciousness is normal states if the awareness of the Minds collective thoughts (electromagnetic waves of different amplitutes and frequencies interfeering). In short consciousness is aware of Mind affect.
Consciousness has an attribute of awareness and zero energy. It is an atomic axiomatic Entity. (Ec)
Energy is discrete and extant eternally. Its attribute is that of amplitude and frequency. It is called an Electromagnetic Entity (Ee)
Freewill is another energyless entity. Its attributes are zero energy AND is an Operator which can be employed by Ce, and / or by Ce AND Ee
Semantics: Ideas with attribute of zero energy AND semantics. Thus, thoughts are semantics manifested in Mind when accompanied by attribute of Ee.
There exists no Time. Pl., see ( http://www.geocities.com/iit_bpd1962/Time/Time.htm )
There exists no Space. (really require a long proof. Pl., see http://www.geocities.com/iit_bpd1962/Space/space.html
This is a verbal explanation and the Mathematical proof is too intricate and many links are required to comprehend it's sanity many of which requre redefinition of existing concepts of time, energy, consciousness using Fourier series and a (new) Logic whose basis is the "new" axioms..
Proof:
Using above axioms symbology.
Kindly ignore words like Reincarnation as it belittles the proof by virtue of existing unproven Beliefs. If it helps, I might add that I am an "Aetheist of sorts" and Yet have proven the existence of a sentient being, which is popularly called god / God/ Whatever. I am unware as to which category I belong and honestly I do not wish to be "categorised" into any "---ist" or "--ism" as is implicated when capatilism and communism and Aetheist, and Agnotic et.
Content: http://www.geocities.com/iit_bpd1962/Reincarnate/reincarnate.html
Q.E.D
Case B: If Consciousness is energyless then it exists even in the lack of enrgy presence. Thisw has to be otherwise Universe could not have been extant when no observers existed, which means energy itself is created upon the realization of consciousness. Only a "god" can do this !
Thanks.
nk
- #47
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
I think the act of observation may actually be considered non-physical where the observer is required to be physical to perform that act.
Conversely, however, during the act of observation, what is being observed must exhibit all the traits of being physical (to match the observer's conditional, physical bias)... However, when the object is not being observed, there's no way to verify if it is physical or not.
There remains only the assumption, based on experience, that the object of the observations remains in the state in which it was observed. And it has been demonstrated over and over that making assumptions is usually a mistake.
Conversely, however, during the act of observation, what is being observed must exhibit all the traits of being physical (to match the observer's conditional, physical bias)... However, when the object is not being observed, there's no way to verify if it is physical or not.
There remains only the assumption, based on experience, that the object of the observations remains in the state in which it was observed. And it has been demonstrated over and over that making assumptions is usually a mistake.
- #48
Rade
Neither the "object" nor that which "observes" the object remain in the same state over time, change is the only constant. My question is whether or not the "object" can observe itself ?quantumcarl said:
- #49
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
Rade said:
Observation takes place only by the use of the mechanisms and functioning stuctures of a neural network. Observation includes the utilization of the peripheral organs of that neural network, as far as is known. Nothing that takes place outside of a neural network can be termed as "observation". For instance, a video camera does not "observe"... it "records". Then the observer interviens and makes observations of what has been recorded.
In a complex neural network such as exists in the whale, humans and other animals it has been noted that some of these species are able to maintain a state of self-contemplation... or, as you put it, "observing itself".
Last edited:
- #50
Rader
- 765
- 0
quantumcarl said:
So then was the HUP a valid principle say 10BY<BC? Where was the neural network? I do not think it is too difficult to see that something is drastically wrong with our concepts. Either the HUP is incorrect and there is no evidence of it or we have to redefine what the observer is.
Not sure exactly what you mean? Is what you mean that, the observer is not physical but invents the physical world they way it assumes it exists?
Pardon me but some of these statements can have a whole bunch of different meanings. From your post it seems that you assume that only brains and observers have neural networks, so could you answer my first question.
- #51
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
Rader said:
(wicpedia)
Don't let my name fool you into thinking I know quantum mechanics but, the above statement may help you with what you're asking about.
What I tried to say is that, so far, it has been determined that there must be an emergent phenomenon such as a human in order for an act of observation to take place. I haven't seen any study that claims there are observations being made by sub-atomic sigmas, hadrons or quarks, waves or hazy-waves.
Semantically we could say that, because we are a composition of waves, then, waves can make observations. However, that would be like saying... because we are composed of 89 percent water, then water has the ability and facility to make observations.
This sorts of generalization of terms and elements is outside of science and outside of the normal use of terms and language. When the word "physical" is used it describes a dynamic synthesis of observation, quantum elements and "wave/particle duality". Observation is the result of the synergy created by the combination of emergent elements... namely, a certain level of complexity in a neural network.
So, when you challenge whether or not quantum particles or waves can observe... you challenge the nature of lanquage more than you challenge the nature of observation and physicality.
When I determine the "act" of observation as non-physical I am merely pointing to the fact that there is a "pipeline" between the observer and the object that holds no physical characteristics.
The observer is a result of physical laws the object of inquiry is a result of physical laws but the "observation" remains non-[hysical. It takes place on the backs of the object and the observer but has no spine of its own... to paraphrase.
Last edited:
- #52
Rader
- 765
- 0
quantumcarl said:
I know that we both know enough to understand what I am questioning and why we seem to have different perspectives. This statement holds veracity only because macro objects have a negligible measurement between the crests of there waves which would make them then appear as solid objects.
Particle experiments show that, if there is no observation there is no particle. The mere act of observation changes reality even after the fact. In other words the particle might not be where it could have been but is only where we find it. Your explanation of human cognitive minds is only OK because that’s all we can be. Why do we have to have any study of what we already know in our heads? My question is how can we come up with a concept that correlates with what we assume exists in this world, from a time evolution of particles to cognitive minds? You can not just rub off the effects that waves have some kind of emergent property that humans have. Then you would have to explain how and where waves get this property and show why it makes us observe how we assume the world exists. If I am correct in understanding you, observation is an emergent property of waves, whereas my understanding is this can not be, that waves are the emergent property of what is observing, which is the world as we assume it exists.
Semantically you could say that but what is physical? The physical world seems to be precisely that relationships of waves. Not quite, only if, we attach properties to waves like the ability to observe, there is an alternative and that is in our head.
Again that’s fine how humans observe but you seem to be missing what I really want you to answer. How did we get from particles to neural networks?
I am not challenging that they do and most certainly think that they do not but whatever does certainly needs what they are to do it.
What does that mean, your not sure of wave-particle duality?
Hmmmm I could take that to mean what I think but I am sure I am wrong.
- #53
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
Rader said:
Right. All I'm saying is that "observation" is the resulting phenomenon of a collection of particles (condensed waves, whatev), neurons are the resulting phenomenon of a collection of particles (condensed waves)... so far, the word "observe, observer and observation" is defined as such... from: http://www.dictionary.net/observation
Its all pretty straight forward from their point of view.
No. It means that there is a non-physical attribute to what is known as a concept. A concept is the resultant phenomenon of a collection of particles (with certain system attributes and functions) but the concept itself is somehow out of the loop of what we consider "physical".
Obserations are sometimes the motivators of concepts... they are arrived at via physical means and motivations... but the concepts that may result from an observation remain aphysical and somewhat etherial.
Its a difficult thing to describe because it isn't physical and I consider myself to have more physical characteristics than a "pipeline" of observation that exists yet does not exist.
- #54
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
For instance:
An observation often results in the formation of a concept that is completely unassociated with the nature of the original object being observed. (eg: after observing what appeared as a clear path through a door-way you are actually walking through glass.)
The observer, being totally oblivious of the fact that he/she has formed an absurd concept with regard to the object being observed can only believe the absurd concept... until they learn otherwise. Until then.. the concept they have formed only exists because of a specific set of associated, functioning neurons. It is not a reality, its not physical, it is thouroughly unverifiable beyond what is going on with the specific neurons.
What neurons do create with their physical activity (for eg. concepts) remains fleeting, etheric and aphysical as does the condition which evoked the formation of the concept .
That condition of which I speak is existence. Existence holds an aphysical quality because existence presents a support structure for both physical and aphysical phenomena... (theoretically... its hard to prove non-existence from our bias of existing). In other words existence appears to encompass both physical and aphysical conditions and so could be defined to be one or the other.
It is this quality of "dual citizenship" (ie: being physical and aphysical) held by existence that allows our concepts to contain incorrect information that has no correlation to physical reality. Yet, it is also because of the duality in existence that our concepts do become physical reality.
An observation often results in the formation of a concept that is completely unassociated with the nature of the original object being observed. (eg: after observing what appeared as a clear path through a door-way you are actually walking through glass.)
The observer, being totally oblivious of the fact that he/she has formed an absurd concept with regard to the object being observed can only believe the absurd concept... until they learn otherwise. Until then.. the concept they have formed only exists because of a specific set of associated, functioning neurons. It is not a reality, its not physical, it is thouroughly unverifiable beyond what is going on with the specific neurons.
What neurons do create with their physical activity (for eg. concepts) remains fleeting, etheric and aphysical as does the condition which evoked the formation of the concept .
That condition of which I speak is existence. Existence holds an aphysical quality because existence presents a support structure for both physical and aphysical phenomena... (theoretically... its hard to prove non-existence from our bias of existing). In other words existence appears to encompass both physical and aphysical conditions and so could be defined to be one or the other.
It is this quality of "dual citizenship" (ie: being physical and aphysical) held by existence that allows our concepts to contain incorrect information that has no correlation to physical reality. Yet, it is also because of the duality in existence that our concepts do become physical reality.
Last edited:
- #55
Rader
- 765
- 0
quantumcarl said:
Then any collection of particles should have this quality yet many collections do not. I am sure we could set up a particle experiment with a chimpanzee yet it would be quite difficult with a rock.
I will agree with you that concepts are non-physical but there corresponding physical relationships could also be considered so. If you take away the observer there is nothing.
So you think that concepts and observers are emergent properties of collections of particles. The concept space-time existed long before Einstein or human observers ever existed. There relationships that define what space-time is might have come to be but the concept would always have to have been. That would be the equivalent of saying that something can come from nothing. My perspective would be that everything comes from one thing. In another sense concepts are eternal yet the physical is mutable and ever changing.
OK and sometimes there not, that is why I brought up Einstein’s concept of space-time. If history tells the truth, what could he have observed to come up with this concept? It was only after observation and experiments proved him right. By thinking the concept came to him, although thoughts are not mine in this case his, he has been accredited this feat of mind.
Its a difficult thing to describe because it isn't physical and I consider myself to have more physical characteristics than a "pipeline" of observation that exists yet does not exist.
Let’s just say that we know we are in our heads, so obviously we can observe the world the way we assume it exists.
- #56
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
Here's a conundrum I found within Loren's question.
We are all observers. Observation is an innate function of our nature. We use it to survive, learn and maintain mobility etc... Therefore, our observations, as far as we can ascertain, are used to maintain our physical state... ie: survive in what we have decided is a physical world.
To ask if the observer is physical is asking the observer to make an observation with regard to the nature of their constitution. This is like asking a person if they think they're a good person or if they are competent or if their a liar etc. etc.. The answer you get is going to be from the perspective of the person... they may have everything to lose or everything to gain depending on their answer. Their answer will, 99% of the time, up hold their beliefs... or in the least, be an expression of what they believe.
So, how are we to trust the answer? It is only an opinion. Can we build a machine that will answer the question "are we physical?"
This isn't possible because we will build into the machine our bias with regard to our beliefs. The question is so relative to the individual that it cannot be answered for all of human kind... or... all those who make observations. Thus, the question is an absurdity in the domain of questions.
We are all observers. Observation is an innate function of our nature. We use it to survive, learn and maintain mobility etc... Therefore, our observations, as far as we can ascertain, are used to maintain our physical state... ie: survive in what we have decided is a physical world.
To ask if the observer is physical is asking the observer to make an observation with regard to the nature of their constitution. This is like asking a person if they think they're a good person or if they are competent or if their a liar etc. etc.. The answer you get is going to be from the perspective of the person... they may have everything to lose or everything to gain depending on their answer. Their answer will, 99% of the time, up hold their beliefs... or in the least, be an expression of what they believe.
So, how are we to trust the answer? It is only an opinion. Can we build a machine that will answer the question "are we physical?"
This isn't possible because we will build into the machine our bias with regard to our beliefs. The question is so relative to the individual that it cannot be answered for all of human kind... or... all those who make observations. Thus, the question is an absurdity in the domain of questions.
- #57
moving finger
- 1,689
- 1
We need to be clear about what is meant by "observer" here.Loren Booda said:
The term observer is often used in the context of objective scientific experiments, where a measurement is being made and the observer is loosely defined as the agent (not necessarily a conscious agent) making the measurement, whilst the observed is loosely defined as the system upon which the measurement is being made. I say "loosely" because this concept only works in the macroscopic approximation where we can assume decoherence eliminates any quantum interference effects. At the quantum level, where we need to take quantum effects into account, it is not possible to delineate "observer" and "observed", and neither is it possible to make a "measurement", in the same way that we can at the macroscopic level (in effect, observer and observed become entangled at the quantum level).
With this in mind, we have at least two possible definitions of "observer".
Observer as "macroscopic agent" : If by "observer" we mean "the agent which is making a measurement in a macroscopic experiment", then yes, this agent can be and usually is physical (but not necessarily conscious).
Observer as "conscious self" : However, if by observer we mean "the idea of self which is created as part of the phenomenon of conscious experience" then no, this agent is not physical (the self is an illusion created by the conscious mind).
Thus, I cannot rationally answer the poll unless it is first agreed what kind of "observer" we are talking about here.
Best Regards
MF
(ps - imho this thread more properly belongs in the metaphysics & epistemology section...)
Last edited:
- #58
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
moving finger said:
I tend to agree with most of your comments concerning the entanglment of observer and observed.
I would question, however, whether or not "illusions" are physical or not. Illusions are a synthesis of neuronal activity that generate the concept of the illusion.
I know I've already suggested that concepts are non-physical but there is more to it than that. Concepts are a result of a synergistic harmony that occurs when a group of neurons fire in sequence or simultaneiously. Thus there is a high percentage of physicalness and/or dependency upon the physical for an illusion to take place. The concept/illusion must then be verified by the physical attributes of other neurons in order to be acknowledged. This leads me to believe that an illusion or a concept has about an 93% or higher content of physical nature to it.
- #59
moving finger
- 1,689
- 1
I would define an illusion as a false belief.quantumcarl said:
What I am claiming is that the notion of "self", as an existent entity, is an illusion.
Let us take another example. In the same way that I may believe the "self" exists, I might also have the illusion that the "tooth fairy" exists.
Would you argue that it follows, from my mistaken belief that the tooth fairy exists, that the tooth fairy (even though it does not exist except in my imagination) is therefore necessarily physical?
What IS physical is the neuronal activity which "generates" those beliefs. But just because the neuronal activity is physical, it does not follow that a "belief" is also a physical object.
I would be very interested to know how you arrive at the precise figure of 93%!quantumcarl said:
To me, it seems clear that there is a very distinct dividing line between physical and non-physical, and to talk of something being "93% physical" seems strange.
To take your explanation of "concepts" further, I would say that a concept is based on a (dynamic) information processing algorithm, and in that respect it is non-physical. Where the physical world comes into play is that a physical substrate is required to represent or embody that information. Think of it in terms of computer hardware (the physical substrate) and the computer program which is running on that hardware. The program is simply "information" (which may be represented or embodied in many different ways), and the hardware without the running program is just a static lump of material. Without any hardware to run on, the program is non-existent, and without the program running, the hardware is ineffectual. Put them both together and you have a working computer program. But at no time is the program "physical" or even 93% physical.
Best Regards
MF
If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple. (Stuart Burns)
- #60
quantumcarl
- 767
- 0
moving finger said:
The program is physical in that it is a series of laser cut grooves in plastic. The format of the information in the program depends on the CD or HD or MP3 or whathaveyou to exist. The grooves (or whatever) stimulate an EM signal much the way a neuron does. The EM signal is signatured in such a way that it is recognizable to other physical structures as a piece of information, instruction... etc.
The EM wave/signal is Physical...albeit quantumesque. The receiving-end is physical. So, please tell me, where is the non-physical portion of a concept or a program?
Last edited: