Is Consciousness Just the Result of Electrical Activity in Our Brains?

[Les Sleeth]

My objection is to the use of word 'consciousness' for something that's without the body or outside the body--because then you have to answer the awkward question:-'what's consciousness without a body conscious of?'.

You might read up on those who've experienced sensory deprivation devices. Also, acomplished meditators withdraw from the senses and experience consciousness itself. If you have never experienced that, then you might assume consciousness requires the senses, and something "external" to be conscious of. It isn't so. The nature of consciousness itself can be experienced, and that might be all you'd have if consciousness were not in a body (i.e., self experience).

May be you can use the word life force in place of 'warm consciousness' that as you propose touches some energy spots in your body to activate the neural networks.You seem to assume that it's some kind of a battery which when connected to the body produces currents in our neural pathways.I don't agree with this.It's perfectly physical processes that are responsible for currents and potential differences within our body.

No, I am not saying that it's a kind of battery. I agree with you that the body produces its own neural, metabolic, etc. energy. I am saying that consciousness is something different, or in a different condition at least, than all the physical stuff. But I am saying too that the physical aspects of the brain are set up to be easily triggered by an act of will. It's like how easy it is to push a button on an elevator and be taken to the 100th floor. The elevator has all the poteniality for power built into it, all you are required to do is trigger the right circuit to get into work for you.

 

[gptejms]

You might read up on those who've experienced sensory deprivation devices. Also, acomplished meditators withdraw from the senses and experience consciousness itself. If you have never experienced that, then you might assume consciousness requires the senses, and something "external" to be conscious of. It isn't so. The nature of consciousness itself can be experienced, and that might be all you'd have if consciousness were not in a body (i.e., self experience).

How does the meditator know that it's consciousness itself that he's experiencing and not something else?

No, I am not saying that it's a kind of battery. I agree with you that the body produces its own neural, metabolic, etc. energy. I am saying that consciousness is something different, or in a different condition at least, than all the physical stuff. But I am saying too that the physical aspects of the brain are set up to be easily triggered by an act of will. It's like how easy it is to push a button on an elevator and be taken to the 100th floor. The elevator has all the poteniality for power built into it, all you are required to do is trigger the right circuit to get into work for you.

Is an act of will not a physical process of the brain?

Are you now equating consciousness with will?

 

[Les Sleeth]

How does the meditator know that it's consciousness itself that he's experiencing and not something else?

It's the way one knows anything: repeated experience. Some people argue that we can never know if we are brains in a vat, where everything merely appears to be real, or if we are experiencing what we believe we are. Personally I just accept that things are pretty much as they appear.

In your life if you repeatedly experience, say, the results of long-established cooking techniques, then you come to "know" using those techniques can be counted on to produce certain results. Someone who has never taken the time to learn cooking techniques (like my wife just kidding sweetie) might think good results are a matter of chance.

Similarly, if one practices meditation every day for a couple of decades, one comes to "know" (as best as anything can be known) certain things. One of them is that consciousness has innate characteristics which can be experienced. You, of course, as a skeptic can always say my experience is deluded or mistaken. But then, if you haven't practiced meditation and therefore have no personal experience with it, you don't really know if your evaluation is correct or not either.

Is an act of will not a physical process of the brain?

Are you now equating consciousness with will?

I believe an act of will is not first a physical process. There must be a physical counterpart to everything consciousness does that involves the body. The question is where does will originate. I think order is, consciousness wills, the brain responds, and then it depends on what's been willed if other parts of the body become involved. I wouldn't say I'm "equating" consciousness with will, but I am attributing will to consciousness.

 

[magus niche]

another rant on consciousness.

nothing can be absolutely known. i believe we as humans love to construct elaborate stories using our intellect combined with our imagination. i believe what i am saying right here is a perfect example. this does not downplay knowledge though. knowledge gives meaning and motivation and ultimately provides one with his/her own subjective reality. of course, it can be a subjective reality that includes objects (ie. common truths/assumptions).

experiential consciousness is still dependent on analysis of memory using signs/symbols to represent the experience. ie. language, imagery, feeling etc. represent the past, even if one doesn't know what they represent. experiencing the 'now' is a worthy achievement, but one impossible without the past.

a fairly pure conscious experience is being constantly aware of ones awareness (in some forms of meditation), but one could theoretically keep adding to that: ie. aware of being aware of ones awareness etc. etc... and this could be an entrance to one form of multidimensionality, or maybe simply a loop of infinite complexity inevitably prone to madness?
anyway absolute awareness becomes useless in the physical world (not that this is a bad thing...)

each living body/vessel/vehicle is initially a unique sensing machine with memes (instinct) to help guide it (plus family/society that molds and directs it). as we develop throughout our life and experience/understand, this consciousness or awareness of our self also seems to develop in varying degrees and directions (especially with the help of certain external devices); as does the amount of choices become greater (free will). but there are always a certain amount of unknown influences governing our actions through energy fields, subconscious drives, subliminal communication etc. and so it is advantageous to become aware of them via learning and self experiment/analysis...

logic is useful but limited
imagination is infinite but useless
together the synthesis is magic
and the potential both tragic and grand

>>>>transmute the chaos into respectful (de)constructivity.

 

[Les Sleeth]

a fairly pure conscious experience is being constantly aware of ones awareness (in some forms of meditation), but one could theoretically keep adding to that: ie. aware of being aware of ones awareness etc. etc... and this could be an entrance to one form of multidimensionality, or maybe simply a loop of infinite complexity inevitably prone to madness?

My experience has been that it isn't a "loop of infinite complexity." Instead, consciusness simplifies in the sense of unifying. This unity occurs at two levels.

The first is, the multifuctionality of consciousness blends to become singular in focus. In other words, without thinking, one is still aware of what one knows and understands. It is a steady and quiet consciousness that views reality, not one incessantly chattering and thinking and imagining and worrying, etc.

The second level of unity is that not only is consciousness internally unified, it also seems to have joined with an aspect of greater reality which exists in a state of unity everywhere external to an individual consciousness.

In my opinion, the reports of enlightenment have come from the first level of unity, and the reports of God have stemmed from this second unity experience. It is also my opinion that the first level must be fully realized to fully experience the second level.

 

[Les Sleeth]

So do you believe Les that it is an individuals responsibility to achieve union or the collective human races with the objective being to evolve to a higher state whether it be biological, physical, spiritual or whatever ?

I wouldn't say it's a responsibility. I'd classify it as an opportunity.

 

[graffix]

RingoKid:
>>...like in an omnipresent compactified Calabi-Yau dimension.

Ok, hitting spring theory... Could it be possible that our brains are sensitive to something (namely spring movements) in the higher dimensions (let's see.. we've got dimensions 5 to 10 open for the imagination). It could be possible that what seems like random triggering of neurons in the brain is actually its response to spring movements?

If so, does it listen to it or do springs listen to the brain? Maybe both. Maybe feeling the music with thousands of other fans at a rock concert could be what's like thousands of people influencing & experiencing springs (a feeback loop). A "vibe" in a room, etc.

Ok, back to describing what we know of consciousness, I would think my dog, my cat, even a rat, a bat, a lizard, even a spider probably have some type of consciousness that is closer to our own than we realize. They are able to process information, are never completely predictable, and all seem to have a place (we call consciousness) where neural events are Experienced. In this sense, psychological (our past, childhood, etc.) and biological (genetic makeup) angles to answering this question is irrelevant. Most of us can agree that things with Life probably have consciousness.

Ok, I need to repeat: all living things seem to have a place where neural events are Experienced. I say neural events because ultimately all our inputs from our senses get translated to neural activity. What is to Experience? To have a reaction. In another words, to Feel something. All living things seem to be able to feel pain, and to feel satisfied (when reproducing or eating). Is this ironic or nothing special? Now we are taught that this is an effect of evolution and that we needed a reward/punishment structure to survive, but what if these Feelings are actually higher dimensions that always existed, and because of these dimensions being part of our universe, we were allowed to have our evolution occur?
Perhaps each higher dimension is a fundamental type of Feeling that's experienced by all life forms, such as happy-sad (mentally content-noncontent), pleasure-pain (physcially content-noncontent), attentive-non attentive, etc. etc. etc.



allanpatrick: thanks for replying :)

 

[gptejms]

You, of course, as a skeptic can always say my experience is deluded or mistaken. But then, if you haven't practiced meditation and therefore have no personal experience with it, you don't really know if your evaluation is correct or not either.

I'm not a skeptic, it's just that I'm not satisfied with the kind of explanations that are provided here(or anywhere else for that matter).The simple rule that :- matter(body) + soul/conciousness/life-force = living being appears too naive to me.May be this formula is given to the common man to give a semblance of something that's too difficult to comprehend.

I believe an act of will is not first a physical process. There must be a physical counterpart to everything consciousness does that involves the body. The question is where does will originate. I think order is, consciousness wills, the brain responds, and then it depends on what's been willed if other parts of the body become involved. I wouldn't say I'm "equating" consciousness with will, but I am attributing will to consciousness.

This reminds me of a book I read:-'Quantum healing' by Deepak Chopra.If I remember right,he talks of similar things:-a thought or a feeling is at first not a physical process,but it gives rise to chemicals in our neurons which travel all around affecting each and every cell in the body and hence our state of health.This conversion of a non-physical process into a physical one(i.e. release of chemicals) can not be understood and he calls this regime 'quantum'.Looks impressive but I'm not sure.The gap from a non-physical process to a physical one is too large.Besides,it may be totally unnecessary to invoke a non-physical process here.

 

[Kerrie]

let's keep this topic clean of insults and back on track...i have had to delete several comments that are instigating arguments that have nothing to do with the subject.

 

[gptejms]

Let me add the following:-
I find the idea matter(body) + soul = living being, wrong/inadequate because of the following reason.By its very definition, the soul is non-physical which when mixed with the body produces a living entity.Ok,so this soul has to be somewhere within the body:-so it has a size less than or equal to the body.Your soul is different from mine which is different from that of another person's soul:--so souls can be counted.If anything has a size and can be counted then how can it be non-physical.So there is a contradiction.
I won't say QED here.Soul could actually be infinite which powers each and every cell in the body---bodies of all living beings.I can't prove this wrong.
In any case,I find consciousness not the right word for what is being discussed here:-consciousness is just a property of the brain.

 

[RingoKid]

I'd noticed that Kerrie

Most all major religions and eastern philosophies have consciousness extant of the body but very few will venture to state exactly where that is or how we acquire it in either the physical or non physical universe whatever you define that to be

It seems preferred to couch this oversight in mystical/ambiguous jargon while often assigning properties of personhood to this realm and state that it is everywhere and nowhere.

Though on reading a few things it seems that science/philosophy would have the solution to the domain of consciousness within the realms of physics.

I too agree and would argue that the best candidate model to date is within the compactified dimensions of string theory.

Tom Mattson on the other hand disagrees with me and rather than address the points/issues I have raised would rather attempt to belittle and insult me. A most immature means of getting one's point across

I would therefore challenge Tom to put up his best candidate model with some reasoning as to why he thinks it is or at least pull me up on issues with my model that he would like some clarification on.

cheers

 

[quantumdude]

I too agree and would argue[/color] that the best candidate model to date is within the compactified dimensions of string theory.

You "would argue[/color]" it?

So then argue it already. All you've done is state it to be the case. And when people ask you to explain yourself, you simply declare that it's right because you know it subjectively, or something to that effect. That is not acceptable argumentation.

Tom Mattson on the other hand disagrees with me

Your reading comprehension skills need work. At no point have I ever denied your metaphysical propositions. I have explained this to you repeatedly, and no matter how many times I say it you just don't seem to get it. I can explain myself to you as clearly as I can, but I can't understand for you. That takes mental effort on your part.

Back to your claims: What I do deny is that you have any justification for holding forth your metaphysical claims. No one has ever extrapolated the most fundamental known physical entities and interactions to a model of consciousness. In fact, no one has ever given a satisfactory account of consciousness that is purely physical. And the connection between consciousness and quantum theory is something that exists only in pop science literature, and in the minds of those who only know science at the popular level.

and rather than address the points/issues I have raised

There's nothing to address. You haven't presented an argument.

would rather attempt to belittle and insult me.

A most immature means of getting one's point across

Look in the mirror.

I would therefore challenge Tom to put up his best candidate model with some reasoning as to why he thinks it is or at least pull me up on issues with my model that he would like some clarification on.

I hope you at least understand basic logic well enough to know that I do not need a competing argument to state what is wrong with your argument. In fact, to date you have not even presented an argument.

 

[juju]

Hi,

Consciousness as relates the mind/thought area, is just another element of the perceptive matrix. Just another object of another sense mechanism. It is an awareness of the thought process produced by the neurons in the brain.

It is awareness in general that is the non-physical component of all the objective senses including consciousness.

juju

 

[graffix]

Let's keep this topic clean of insults and back on track...i have had to delete several comments that are instigating arguments that have nothing to do with the subject.

I think that needs repeating.

I don't think it's that hard to be humble in here

Thanks

Humble
- Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful.

 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

i've been reading a lot in here about explaining consciousness with physics. certainly any sane physicist must admit that we have not discovered everything. there are forms of energy and particles that we have not observed or catalogued. i think it's possible that consciousness could be based upon some of these forms of energy or particles that we have not yet discovered. but i also agree that there is no observation or data to support such a theory. but i think that's half the point, we haven't observed the particles yet, so of course we can't observe how they interact to cause consciousness.

on another venue, consciousness seems to be one of the most enigmatic words we seek to define. and i don't think anyone has yet given a satisfactory definition of consciousness. before we can hope to discover what causes consciousness, we need to define what it is we're looking for. this is where i can express my opinion, because i believe that consciousness is by its very nature indefinable. but maybe that's just the philosopher in me :)

in any event, we can't hope to find the root of consciousness soley in physics, nor soley in physiology. yes we know about neurons and neurotransmitters, but we don't know how electromagnetic fields might affect their interaction. how might a supernova in a distant galaxy 4 million years ago affect our consciousness? it's too incomplete a picture to say that it's all in the chemical reactions. there's a relationship between chemistry and physics, especially in living organisms, that i think most chemists and most phsyicists ignore. we need to think in terms of more than one science if we hope to explain some of the most complex events in the universe, such as consciousness.

and that's my rant on that :)

 

[gather]

What is Consciousness? or What _Does_ Consciousness?

Pardon me for being at a complete loss when it comes to describing, in scientific terms, the nature of consciousness.

As some who have read my posts here from time to time know, I keep a small record of what I and many others believe that consciousness does.

I have remarked often about Prof. Kaku's Levels of Civilization, too. In the archives.

Please come by for a visit when you have the time. (Not a long visit—only one page—oh yes, there is a small opinion poll going on now, too).

I appreciate your interest and thank you in advance for checking this out:

http://project-global-consciousness.org/

Ken
(gather)

?

 

[Hellburner]

Haven't read the whole thread, I'll work my way through it. Hope I'm not repeating anything or stepping on toes.

Consciousness is an emergent property of matter/energy of sufficient organizational complexity.

The entirety of the universe's computational potential in insufficient to completely model a single consciousness. A basic combinatorial explosion not to mention likely quantum effects. This leads to de facto free will.

Artificial intelligence/consciousness will likely emerge. If it's independently emergent it may be very alien, if it results from intelligence amplification it may share something of humanity...

 

[Les Sleeth]

Haven't read the whole thread, I'll work my way through it. Hope I'm not repeating anything or stepping on toes.

Welcome to PF Hellburner.

Consciousness is an emergent property of matter/energy of sufficient organizational complexity.

A theory. You cannot demonstrate consciousness is emergent, and you cannot show it results from complexity. Until is proven, when you state it as a fact you are not being accurate in your communication.

The entirety of the universe's computational potential in insufficient to completely model a single consciousness. A basic combinatorial explosion not to mention likely quantum effects. This leads to de facto free will.

More theory. You might consider preceding such statements with "in my opinion . . ."

Artificial intelligence/consciousness will likely emerge. If it's independently emergent it may be very alien, if it results from intelligence amplification it may share something of humanity...

Well maybe. All the AI enthusiansts and programmers make big claims. As for me, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Hellburner]

Re: subjective experience.

I really have to turn it around and ask, how can you NOT have subjective experience?

Lets say each consciousness is a black box. Each box has a random seed from an effectively infinite set. Hence no consciousness can have the exact same experience.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Re: subjective experience.

I really have to turn it around and ask, how can you NOT have subjective experience?

Lets say each consciousness is a black box. Each box has a random seed from an effectively infinite set. Hence no consciousness can have the exact same experience.

You are correct. But that's not the point (accepting your confidence that mechanics/physicalness can explain it all). What set of physical circumstances can you put together which proves physicalness creates subjective conscious experience to begin with?

 

[Hellburner]

A theory. You cannot demonstrate consciousness is emergent, and you cannot show it results from complexity. Until is proven, when you state it as a fact you are not being accurate in your communication.

Yes, a theory with some rather compelling foundational basis. Look at the animal kingdom, in general the more complex the brain structure the higher the consciousness. In the realm of artificial neural nets, more complex structures yield emergent properties generally related to the level of complexity.

More theory. You might consider preceding such statements with "in my opinion . . ."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0110/0110141.pdf

The universe can have performed no more than 10^120 ops on 10^90 bits.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/CNS.html

It is estimated that the human brain contains 100 billion (10^11) neurons averaging 10,000 synapses on each; that is, some 10^15 connections.

Assuming a purely binary synapse (most assuredly not the case), there would be what? 2^(10^15) states? How does that compare to the computational capacity of the universe?

 

[Hellburner]

What set of physical circumstances can you put together which proves physicalness creates subjective conscious experience to begin with?

It's basically a biochemical cascade largely predicated by various environmental inputs and the synaptic weightings imparted by prior life experiences.

 

[loseyourname]

Assuming a purely binary synapse (most assuredly not the case), there would be what? 2^(10^15) states? How does that compare to the computational capacity of the universe?

Human neural synapses are likely capable of receiving at least 10 different neurotransmitters, each of which produces a unique signal transduction cascade, which itself will vary according to the internal structure of each neuron (which is not standard for all neurons).

 

[satya]

How my consciousness depicts "consciousness"

I don't know if there is anything absolute - realization might vary.
What I am writing here is all truth to me.
I practiced meditation from 1987 - I have a weird experience once - It was december 2000 Austin, Seton centre pkwy.. at my apt.. I was meditating on the floor and no drug effect the time was 12:20AM - Its all about isolation - I was concentrating on a concept that:: "something that changes is not my soul - anything that changes is part of nature surrounding me" - I do not exist on the skin, neither on flesh or blood nor even Na+ ion movement across synapses communicating electrical pulses in my brain - I am beyond - I was trying to focus my mind little above my head - as if i am outside the body and just there 2 inches above my head - maybe couple of hours passed - and all what I got is a point of light - that gradually got enlarged and was all around me - then "consciousness" regained slowly - I still felt I have the body - I am sorry to say, for this was the first time I got scared - for I was unable to open my eyes - I was unable to move any of my limb - though I was wishing strongly I that I am breathing - but I was not sure that I was breathing or not - there was nobody else at the house - I was willing I have a hand a leg - LOL - slowly enough I got back myself as a breathing human being - but by that time it was already morning 6:30AM and I have my -dead-cold legs - you know, I felt like due to something I had no blood circulation on my legs and arms.
I concluded that consciousness is all about being in this space time.

 

[Esnas]

Additionally, the human level of consciousness is determined in precisely the same manner... stimuli impinge upon our various sensory receptors. It is from these myriad of "collisions" from solid molecules triggering olfaction and taste, photons striking our retina for sight, touching or being touched, hearing sound waves, speech from air molecules passing over our vocal chords. ...What IS consciousness must first be answered. I have yet to arrive at a conclusion that I find entirely satisfactory.

This brings me to the connection between consciousness and observation. I cannot imagine consciousness without some form of observation. Quantum physics makes the connection between quantum reality and the method of observation or measuring. This puts a totally different spin on things. (No pun intended) The existence of an electron depends on how and if it is observed. Besides the intriguing question "What is consciousness?" there is also the following question. Does consciousness exist because of some interaction in the material world or does the material world exist because of consciousness?

 

[sid_galt]

The existence of an electron depends on how and if it is observed. Besides the intriguing question "What is consciousness?" there is also the following question. Does consciousness exist because of some interaction in the material world or does the material world exist because of consciousness?

According to quantum physics, the properties of an electron depend on observation not the existence itself.

Consciousness is not a primary. Existence is is. Without existence, consciousness is not possible.

 

[loseyourname]

The existence of an electron depends on how and if it is observed. Besides the intriguing question "What is consciousness?" there is also the following question. Does consciousness exist because of some interaction in the material world or does the material world exist because of consciousness?

You shouldn't state your interpretation here as if it is not contentious. By "observation," many researchers only mean the physical interaction of photon and electron. The relevance of conscious experience of the observation is not known and not even investigated as far as I know. You're relying on interpretation of data that are far from standard.

 

[Fliption]

You shouldn't state your interpretation here as if it is not contentious. By "observation," many researchers only mean the physical interaction of photon and electron. The relevance of conscious experience of the observation is not known and not even investigated as far as I know. You're relying on interpretation of data that are far from standard.

Loseyourname is right that it is contentious. But only in this forum. It seems that some in this forum still seem to want to cling to the billiard ball physics of subatomic particles. Everything else I have ever read doesn't do this. I even saw a science program on television the other day ( I know, I know this is "pop science" blah! ) and they explicitly claimed in this program that "measurement" was more than just interaction of sub-atomic particles. Here is a link to a long thread on this very topic.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2971&page=1&pp=15

Note the original posters attitude toward anything other than "particle from measuring device interacts with particle to be measured and changes it." This is the uncertainty principle to him. But as I said, there is a lot of information out there claiming that uncertainty runs much deeper than this and this information isn't sponsored by the 'Mystics of America' as some would have you think.

 

[RingoKid]

No one has ever extrapolated the most fundamental known physical entities and interactions to a model of consciousness. In fact, no one has ever given a satisfactory account of consciousness that is purely physical. And the connection between consciousness and quantum theory is something that exists only in pop science literature, and in the minds of those who only know science at the popular level.

So am I the first then ?

BTW I think you mean brains instead of minds. Connections have always been there but you probably wouldn't recognize them if science is your God ...

It takes 2 to argue and no one seems to be arguing with me on my speculation of a repository for consciousness in a compactified dimension of string theory. The only argument I'm getting is from you on the method in which I invite argument by stating what I believe to be true as a statement of fact.

I don't have to prove I'm right to anybody, however you seem to have to prove I'm wrong to everybody so just keep pissing in the wind Tom.

time will tell...

 

[loseyourname]

Why not ask the people that actually know?

I think the Copenhagen doctrine is correct if we just say that the interaction "could" be known. QM does appear to be controlled by information or knowledge. For example, just knowing the location of a photon at one slit of the double slit experiment eliminates the interference fringe pattern, no matter how slight the photon is perturbed in the experiment. The location of the photon in this case is actually known, even if removed from the human observer by several layers of instruments and processing time. The interesting thing is that the waves know to collapse long before the human knows what they have done. It seems to happen instantly. Some try to argue that a cosmic consciousness is involved. But it is sufficient for scientific purposes to just extent the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM to 'could' observe.

In experiments the human often perturbs the environment by making a measurement of where the photon is. But in natural processes, very strong perturbations revealing the locations of the photons happen all the time, like at the detector screen, which usually absorbs the photon. But photons are constantly being absorbed by various surfaces and the interaction locates the photon. Sometimes humans get to know this, but almost all the time there is no human intervention, yet the Extended Copenhagen Interpretition would work.

That answer was given in the quantum physics forum, which would be the proper place to ask this question. Those of us here in the metaphysics forum really don't know what we're talking about. All uncertainty is to me is this:

Dp Dq > h / 4p

DE Dt > h / 4p

• Let's say you measure the position of a moving electron with such great accuracy that Dq is very small. What happens to the precision of the momentum Dp, which you measure at the same instant? From the first relation, we have
  
  Dp > h / 4 p Dq
  
  You can see that the uncertainty in the momentum measurement, Dp is very large, since Dq in the denominator is very small. In fact, if the precision of the position measurement gets so great that the uncertainty Dq gets so small that it approaches zero, then Dp gets so large that it approaches infinity or becomes completely undefined.

From http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08a.htm

I guess I don't see too much metaphysical relevance in this fact alone. In fact, there are literally thousands of measurements that can be made of quantities other than momentum, position, energy, and time that are not subject to these relations. Furthermore, the relations do not apply to macroscopic entities. Even if the subatomic particles that constitute all matter are subject to probabilistic modeling, when put together into human-size objects, the statistical aberrations cancel out and we get certainty. I can definitely know my own position and momentum, or Fliption's energy and time. Which brings me to the only metaphysical question I've ever had about the uncertainty principle: Why would a conscious observer be relevant if we've only been able to consciously observe entities subject to uncertainty for less than several decades?

Then again, by my own admission, I really have no idea what I'm talking about with respect to this matter. For that reason, I've linked Fliption's post to a thread in the Quantum Physics forum and, with any luck, someone who does know what she is talking about can help us out.

Here is the thread.