- #1
Thanatos
- 6
- 0
this is a very nice forum, though I'm slightly disappointed that there's no neuroscience or philosophy of mind board, given the central role of consciousness underlying all theories of physics.
Originally posted by Thanatos
this is a very nice forum, though I'm slightly disappointed that there's no neuroscience or philosophy of mind board, given the central role of consciousness underlying all theories of physics.
Relativity? Quantum physics?Originally posted by Tom
Although it is not true that consciousness per se has any role in any physical theory,
Originally posted by Jeebus
Could quantum information be the key to understanding consciousness?
Could consciousness enable future quantum information technology?
Just a little antidote to think about.
Originally posted by Darrenicus
Relativity? Quantum physics?
Laws pertaining to the former are dependendent upon the subjective distortion of spacetime, as perceived by conciousness. Laws pertaining to the latter do so with the knowledge that a particle only behaves like a particle, when observed by conciousness.
Let's not forget that physics is derived by reason - a facet of human conciousness - and that mathematics itself was borne of the mind.
I feel that you do conciousness an injustice. Not the first physicist to do so... and certainly not the last. You're a product of your era and culture. But times are moving on...
I.e. "Consciousness is primary and material processes are secondary"Tom: ... material processes (as described by QM and SR) are primary, and consciousness is secondary, but you {Darrenicus} and Thanatos seem to have it exactly backwards.
Yes they do. But those predictions are derived from Einstein's work, which in turn was derived by the way we perceive the universe.Originally posted by Tom
First, relativity is not dependent on any subjective interpretation of anything. The results of relativistic calculations return the actual spacetime coordinates of events in a particular frame.
It has been shown that a singular electron has acted as a wave until observed, when it then acts as a particle.Second, observations in quantum mechanics have no reference to either consciousness or knowledge. A quantum mechanical observation can be made with a lifeless detector.
Well, given the opportunity we would argue the opposite case. We'd also like to see someone give some reason for asserting your established conclusions, rather than just listen to the assertion and be forced to accept it.Second, I also think you do not have a very good handle on the scientific view of consciousness. As I said in my last post, it is an emergent property. That is, material processes (as described by QM and SR) are primary, and consciousness is secondary, but you and Thanatos seem to have it exactly backwards.
Originally posted by Darrenicus
Well, given the opportunity we would argue the opposite case.
Originally posted by Darrenicus
Yes they do. But those predictions are derived from Einstein's work, which in turn was derived by the way we perceive the universe.
So how do we perceive the universe?
Lots to discuss there... but it's easy to argue that the predictions you discuss are just evidence of how perception is ordered within the mind's eye. Nothing else.
It has been shown that a singular electron has acted as a wave until observed, when it then acts as a particle.
And we should speak at-length about what a "lifeless detector" acually is. Later perhaps.
Well, given the opportunity we would argue the opposite case. We'd also like to see someone give some reason for asserting your established conclusions, rather than just listen to the assertion and be forced to accept it.
Such is philosophy.
Originally posted by Tom
Perhaps, because the modern scientific view is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon that emerges from quantum processes.
Originally posted by Tom
The original comment you objected to is the one in which I said that consicousness does not play a role (as in subject or object) in the theories of modern physics, and that is correct.
Originally posted by Thanatos
really? how can you tell?
Originally posted by hypnagogue
The subtext under his/her screen name reads "Cracker"... means s/he's been banned. S/he was probably a previously banned user who used a new screen name from the same IP
Although consciousness doesn't impact the outcome of any physical law per se' (even if gone unrealized), it is the only means we have by which to ascertain and measure it, in which case I would agree.Originally posted by Thanatos
this is a very nice forum, though I'm slightly disappointed that there's no neuroscience or philosophy of mind board, given the central role of consciousness underlying all theories of physics.
Anyone here familiar with the term Lifegazerism? ... Well, it could have been ...Originally posted by hypnagogue
The subtext under his/her screen name reads "Cracker"... means s/he's been banned. S/he was probably a previously banned user who used a new screen name from the same IP, or at least I hope so given the hastiness of it all.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
In fact, I would take it a step further and say that consciousness is the very means by which the Universe gets to "know" itself.
Of course this also suggests that life doesn't exist independently from the Universe, that indeed, the Universe exists to support life. In which case the Universe becomes a living organism (entity?) unto itself, and that it's main "purpose" is life.Originally posted by Thanatos
I would concur and think this is a brilliant observation. Or, another way of putting it: "We are the Universe conscious of Itself".
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Wait... so this Darrenicus fellow got banned (already)? 3 strikes and you're out? [?]
Tom: Perhaps, because the modern scientific view is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon that emerges from quantum processes.
Thanatos: This is incorrect, and in fact seems rather presumptuous.
This is incorrect, and in fact seems rather presumptuous. The view of most neuroscientists is that mind is a function of the brain... that it's identical to a special type of activity involving populations of interacting neurons. As such, the mind is not caused by the brain, nor does it emerge from anything, but rather involves an identity.
Tom: The original comment you objected to is the one in which I said that consicousness does not play a role (as in subject or object) in the theories of modern physics, and that is correct.
Thanatos: so you presume to know what is conscious and what is not? Maybe you can elaborate on this.
Maybe you can demonstrate why activity in the cerebellum is not brought to a subject's consciousness whereas activity in the cerebrum is.
By all means, please use a quantum mechanical explanation if you care to. The fact of the matter is that you can't, and so your interpretations and beliefs, which you're trying to hand-wave and present dogmatically, are unwarranted.
As for whoever attributed to me that "Consciousness is primary and material processes are secondary", I would say that this attribution is overly-simplistic and amounts to little more than a straw-man.
We are all limited by our states of consciousness. For those of you who have experienced little of the vast range of consciousness, then it's easy to believe that what you experience is some accurate reflection of the 'objective world'.
Originally posted by Thanatos
This is incorrect, and in fact seems rather presumptuous. The view of most neuroscientists is that mind is a function of the brain... that it's identical to a special type of activity involving populations of interacting neurons.
Originally posted by Thanatos
As such, the mind is not caused by the brain, nor does it emerge from anything, but rather involves an identity. It's similar to an electromagnetic field appearing purely electric in one moving frame of reference, but also purely magnetic in a different frame of reference... they're just different perspectives of one and the same electromagnetic field. So too with consciousness and neuronal activity... they're simply different perspectives of one and the same thing.
Originally posted by Thanatos
We are all limited by our states of consciousness. For those of you who have experienced little of the vast range of consciousness, then it's easy to believe that what you experience is some accurate reflection of the 'objective world'. The 'objective world', as you perceive it, is merely a figment of your imagination.
Originally posted by Thanatos
If you alter your state of consciousness, you will perceive different things, different truths, and in general, you will realize how small-minded and limited your previous conceptions of the 'objective world' are.
Originally posted by Thanatos
I don't care how advanced your understanding of unified quantum field theory, string theory, or differential topology is... what you must understand is that understanding is relative.
Originally posted by Thanatos
. . . of mankinds highest states of consciousness yet experienced are like nothing compared to what is yet to be experienced and realized
Originally posted by Thanatos
I'm sure you're all familiar with the notion of a consciousness singularity,
Originally posted by Thanatos
... the point being that those who dismiss the centrality of consciousness are, imho, ignorant.
Originally posted by Mentat
This problem was the reason for Tiberius' "Clarification on QM" in the Archives of the Philosophy Forum.
Originally posted by Fliption
And then Tiberius just traded one untruth for another.
Originally posted by Mentat
Not for another "untruth". It may be unverified, but there is nothing scientifically or logically wrong with his approach.
Originally posted by Fliption
It is no truer than the approach he was denouncing. Scientifically, it was wrong.
Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, my dear fellow, though I hate to dredge up old arguments that we agreed to leave alone, there is no scientifically possible way to postulate consciousness' interacting at the subatomic level. In fact, most of the sciences that ever deal with either phenomenon (subatomic particles or consciousness) give clear reasons (though not directly, since this is not their purpose) why this cannot be the case.
Originally posted by Fliption
I am not referring to Tiberius' point about consciousness. I am referring to his further elaboration that quantum physics is nothing more than classical billard ball physics. His assertion that the uncertainty principal is nothing more than the measuring object making physical contact with the measured object, hence affecting the measurement, is just not accurate. The uncertainty principal is more fundamental than that.
I would have thought you'd have figured out by now that my problem with Tiberous' post had nothing to do with the objection to consciousness. It was more his writing quantum physics off as nothing more than classical physics and therefore completely "explained". I thought you and I agreed that there was much to learn in quantum physics. It was clear that Tiberious did not think this was true.
Also, on the consciousness topic, if you can point to text that makes the claims you are talking about above I'd like to see it. I haven't seen such things in my readings. Thanks
I'm not sure I understand your point because to me when he says this:Originally posted by Mentat
Tiberius was (AFAIK) well aware of the superposition of quantum particles, and other such implications of quantum uncertainty. The fact that he used "billiard-ball"-ish illustration is no more a flaw in his argument than Schrodinger's "cat" analogy was a flaw in his (since wave/particle duality is utterly negligble in macroscopic objects like cats).
What claims?
there is no scientifically possible way to postulate consciousness' interacting at the subatomic level. In fact, most of the sciences that ever deal with either phenomenon (subatomic particles or consciousness) give clear reasons why this cannot be the case.