The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Since Big Bang Creationism is religion disguised as science, we must date stars according to their appearances and do away with creationism.

In the paper I provide a more reasonable approach to aging stars in large groups.

http://vixra.org/abs/1406.0102

Establishment dogma (big bang creationism):

Young stars have more iron and metals. (Population I)
Old stars have more helium/hydrogen. (Population II)
Ancient stars have all hydrogen/helium. (Population III, do not exist)


Stellar metamorphosis:
Young stars are mostly plasma. (Population I) Sun
Middle aged stars are mostly gaseous. (Population II) Jupiter
Old stars are mostly solid/liquid. (Population III) Earth
Ancient dead stars are solid. (Population IV) Mercury
Star guts. Callisto, asteroid belt, meteorites, rings around Saturn, etc.


For those who do not understand, establishment science ridicules people who do not believe in their creation myth of a giant singularity exploding everything into existence. So it is advised to steer clear of that stuff, it is a waste of time.
22
Just Chat ! / Re: Punning is hard(ly) work! Groaning aloud here?
« Last post by Donnah on 22/12/2014 19:45:07 »
Could be a bit of a white elephant.
23
Cheryl :

I did add some extra remarks below  this post of mine to you that weren't added to the same one in the previous page :

I've been reluctant to get drawn into the quantum mechanics part of the discussion because to me, Don has never clearly outlined how he gets from "consciousness collapses the wave function" to "the brain is a transceiver for immaterial nonlocal consciousness" - so what's the point of debating the interpretation of quantum mechanics for that end? His version of consciousness remains unexplained and attributeless, regardless.

Never the less, because he brings it up over and over and insists that all the really important physicists accept his interpretation, I thought I'd post some interesting quotes from the article :Does Quantum Mechanics Require A Conscious Observer? by Michael Nauenberg, (a collaborator of Bell's.) The last quote is one of Bell's.
 
"Abstract:
The view that the implementation of the principles of quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer is based on misconceptions that are described in this article."
http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness139.html


Richard P. Feynman (Nobel Prize, 1965):
Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not (Feynman et al., 1965). 

Murray Gellmann (Nobel Prize, 1969): The universe presumably couldn't care less whether human beings evolved on some obscure planet to study its history; it goes on obeying the quantum mechanical laws of physics irrespective of observation by physicists (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, 156). 

Anthony J. Leggett (Nobel Prize 2003): It may be somewhat dangerous to explain something one does not understand very well [the quantum measurement process] by invoking something [consciousness] one does not understand at all! (Leggett, 1991). 

John A. Wheeler: Caution: "Consciousness" has nothing whatsover to do with the quantum process. We are dealing with an event that makes itself known by an irreversible act of amplification, by an indelible record, an act of registration. Does that record subsequently enter into the "consciousness" of some person, some animal or some computer? Is that the first step into translating the measurement into "meaning" meaning regarded as "the joint product of all the evidence that is available to those who communicate." Then that is a separate part of the story, important but not to be confused with "quantum phenomena." (Wheeler, 1983).

John S. Bell: From some popular presentations the general public could get the impression that the very existence of the cosmos depends on our being here to observe the observables. I do not know that this is wrong. I am inclined to hope that we are indeed that important. But I see no evidence that it is so in the success of contemporary quantum theory.

So I think that it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics. Or that `information' is the real stuff of physical theory. It seems to me irresponsible to suggest that technical features of contemporary theory were anticipated by the saints of ancient religions... by introspection.

The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences. Of course this apparatus, in laboratory experiments, is chosen and adjusted by the experiments. In this sense the outcomes of experiments are indeed dependent on the mental process of the experimenters! But once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference - according to ordinary quantum mechanics - whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such 'observing' to computers, (Bell, 1984).

Nico van Kampem:
Whoever endows with more meaning than is needed for computing observable phenomena is responsible for the consequences. (van Kampen, 1988).

Well, you should try to refute my earlier quotes and excerpts on the subject , instead of posting others that say somethingelse .

I have many sources that agree with the above stuff of yours , as i have many more other sources that disagree .

There is a lots of disagreement about the interpretation of QM , which comes down to no agreement or real consensus , but the simplest and most plausible interpretation of QM was delivered by Von Neumann mainly and is still supported by an army of physicists today ,  prominent and less prominent ones ,so .

Feynman was the one who said by the way that " I can safely say that nobody understands QM ..." : the interpretation of QM remains controversial and unresolved thus , although the simplest and more plausible interpretation of QM is the one that was mentioned above .

All interpretations of QM thus are relatively "equally valid " , while the one that involves the observer effect in the above mentioned sense is more simple and plausible than the rest,even though it has not been proved conclusively  ( how can it be proved conclusively , since physicists  can't know what happens when they are not conducting measurements or conscious aware observations: when they are not looking ...or when they conduct the 1  measurement and not another one .) .

Those physicists who say that the latter is based on a misconception are the ones against it , like all materialists are , simply because it is totally incompatible with materialism .

The materialistic MW interpretation of QM  is too untestable , too absurd bizarre paradoxical to be taken seriously , and it is based all about the major materialistic false premises or belief : consciousness is a material process (well, of course consciousness cannot collapse the wave function, if it is just a material process like the rest of them are lol : how convenient for materialists .) .

Bell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge classical locality , classical determinism, and classical realism as well,as QM predicted they would  .

The classical realism , for example, that states that the properties of objects are independent of whether or not they are observed : the so-called external  objective reality "out there " is independent from the observer :  that was challenged by Bell's theorem and its related experiments exactly as QM predicted thus = the observer and the observed are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other = there is no such thing as the independent observer and independent observed : the observer and the observed are inseparable = the subjective and the objective are inseparable = science must try to modify or rather  extend and expand its rational empirical methodology and epistemology as to include the subjective element in it , not to mention that science must also modify its vocabulary on the subject accordingly , since science has to be communicated through human language as well .

Even Einstein himself was bothered mostly by the latter fact , by the fact that QM challenged classical realism .He could not bring himself to accept that ,that's why he thought that the highly successful QM had to be incomplete .He tried to prove the latter via what became to be known as the EPR (collectively Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen ) argument with Bohr .

Bell's theorem and its related experiments proved thus Einstein to be wrong and Bohr to be right : see below :

Even dlorde and alancalverd could say nothing intelligent about the following , let alone try to refute it ,despite my repetitive posting of the following ,on many occasions :  Here you go again thus :

What particular word , concept , sentence or whatever exactly can't  you understand from the following ? :

Conscious aware observation has to be made anyway , at the end of the measurement chain, as Von Neumann said ,so .

Source : "Quantum Enigma , Physics encounters consciousness : "

http://quantumenigma.com/

"According to Bell:
In his arguments with Bohr, Einstein was wrong in all the details.
Bohr understood the actual manipulation of quantum mechanics much better than Einstein. But still, in his philosophy of physics and his idea of what it is all about and what we are doing and should do, Einstein seems to be absolutely admirable. . . . [T]here is no doubt that he is, for me, the model of how one should think about physics."

.......


"Bell’s theorem and the experiments it fostered are responsible. They
did more than confi rm the weird predictions of quantum theory. The
experiments showed that no future theory could ever explain our actual
world as a “reasonable” one. Any correct future theory must describe a world in which objects do not have properties that are separately their own, independent of their “observation.” In principle, that applies to all objects. Even to us?"

............

Bell’s theorem has been called “the most profound discovery in science in
the last half of the twentieth century.” It has rubbed physics’ nose in the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Bell’s theorem and the experiments it stimulated answered what was supposedly a “merely philosophical question” in the laboratory. We now know Einstein’s “spooky actions” actually exist. Even events at the edge of the galaxy instantly influence what happens at the edge of your garden. We quickly emphasize that such influences are undetectable in any normally complex situation.Nevertheless, What are now called “EPR-Bell influences,” or entanglement, now get attention in industrial laboratories for their potential to allow incredibly powerful computers. They already provide the most secure encryption for confidential communication. Bell’s theorem has renewed interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics, and dramatically displays physics’ encounter with consciousness."

..........

.."When the experiments were done, Bell’s inequality was violated. Assumptions of reality and separability yielded a wrong prediction in our actual world.

Bell’s straw man was knocked down, as Bell expected it would be. Our world therefore does not have both reality and separability. It’s in this sense, an “unreasonable” world.
We immediately admit not understanding what the world lacking “reality” might mean. Even what “reality” itself might mean. In fact, whether or not reality is indeed required as a premise in Bell’s theorem is in dispute.
However, we need not deal with that right now.

 For our derivation of a Bell inequality, we assume a straightforward real world. Later, when we discuss the consequences of the violation of Bell’s inequality in our actual world, we’ll define a “reality” implicitly accepted by most physicists. It will leave us with a strangely connected world."


P.S.: Even Bell himself ,even the authors of quantum enigma , the author Alastair Rae of "Quantum physics , illusion or reality ? " , and many other physicists would rather prefer to rescue or preserve some sense of "reality " than to give it all up ,otherwise they would have nothing to work on  ( or as Einstein said ,or in words to that same effect at least : I don't see what's physics is supposed to work on ,if the objective reality out there is inseparable from the observer ) ,or as Alastair Rae, for example , who's a propenent of MW interpretation of QM  said in that above mentioned book of his : i would rather prefer to believe in MW than to give up reality .He did even admit that that's just a matter of taste or a matter of philosophical , or aesthetical preference , not  a matter of fact .

Furthermore, my own understanding of the conscious aware collapse of the wave function cannot be taken in the literal sense : it just means that the physical reality or the objective reality is inseparable from the consciousness of the observer (there is no separate consciousness and separate physical reality : they are inseparable : "reality " is psycho-physical as Pauli used to say ) ,or as a prominent physicist said, or in words to the same effect at least :

[/Will it not trun out that ,with the developemnt of science , any progress in the study of the universe will be impossible without that in the study of consciousness ,since both are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other .i]

24
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447013#msg447013 date=1419201241]
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446938#msg446938 date=1419111719]
Only the modern substance dualism and idealist monism are consistent with QM , and can thus remain in the competition regarding the possible theories of consciousness .

Materialism and property dualism ( the latter is just yet another paradoxical form of  materialism and panpsychism in disguise thus )  ,for example , are  incompatible with QM that has been encountering consciousness.
No; not even wrong
.

Can you elaborate on that ? , please , thanks .
Already done earlier in the thread.

Oh ,that : there are allegedly no significant or relevant forces that remain to be discovered ,and hence consciousness is just a material process without any causal effects on matter ...blablabla ...(Reminds me of what a British lunatic scientist or physicist said in the 19th century by the way about how allegedly nearly complete classical physics were  ,in the sense that there remained no laws of physics to be discovered . Only details remained to be filled in through better and better measurements . lol How ironic: QFT says basically the same : history repeats itself  .)

How can physics say anything about the latter ? since "physicists can't even explain physics ..." and since "we might be needing better physics than QM to account for consciousness" ,as Wigner said .

No wonder that William James did predict the fact that classical physics had to be approximately correct and fundamentally false , since it could /can absolutely not account for neither consciousness nor for its causal effects on matter .

Quote
Quote
The materialistic so-called standard model of quantum field theory has to be thus approximately correct and fundamentally false...
QFT is not a description of reality, it's a model. It's a good model because it works. Without it, you wouldn't have the processor or storage in your computer, or LEDs, etc. When it stops making astonishingly accurate predictions about the real world, it'll be time to refine it or replace it.

QFT  works like classical physics did /do , but they are nevertheless both approximately correct and fundamentally false ,since they both can absolutely not account for neither consciousness nor for its causal effects on matter , once again thus .

By the way , your beloved  Sean Caroll talks about QFT as being the one that 's all about the nature of reality lol ( what a bombastic talk ) ,while physicists can't even solve the interpretation problem in QM that's supposed to be about the nature of reality ,while 96% of the universe is allegedly made of unknown dark matter and unknown dark energy ,so physicists do not even know much about the remaining 4 % of the universe , ironically enough .

Not to mention the fact that 99,9999..9 % of the universe is made of "empty space " , while the remaining 0,0000..0 % is "matter " ( not to mention the wave /particle duality ) .

Physicists focus thus all their attention on the 0,00000..0 % of the remaining 4 % lol of the universe , and then they have the nerve to assert so boldly and bombastically that that's all about "the nature of reality "  lol  through the QFT lol

You gotta be insane to believe in that materialistic stuff .
25
Well, you should try to refute my earlier quotes and excerpts on the subject , instead of posting others that say somethingelse .
Good grief, that's rich coming from someone who's sole technique is based on posting other people's work. Pots & kettles come to mind.

Well, you ,guys, are all materialists (I am the only non-materialist guy here ) ,so i have to try to provide you with non-materialist stuff that refutes materialism .
That's why i was relying on the works of some scientists , philosophers ...by posting some relevant excerpts of theirs from some of their books on the subject to support my claims : that's what this whole thread is all about by the way : about a certain manifesto for a post-materialistic science that embraces both the material and the immaterial in nature , since materialism is false , mainly because it can never intrinsically account for consciousness, let alone explain it ,and hence all materialist theories of consciousness are false + the materialistic MW interpretation of QM is also false ,since it is based on the materialistic false belief assumption that consciousness is just a material process + The materialistic so-called standard model of QFT has to be fundamentally false and approximately correct , like classical physics were/are  by the way , simply because the latter both can absolutely not account for neither consciousness nor for its causal effects on matter ..................
26
Well, you should try to refute my earlier quotes and excerpts on the subject , instead of posting others that say somethingelse .
Good grief, that's rich coming from someone who's sole technique is based on posting other people's work. Pots & kettles come to mind.
27
New Theories / Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
« Last post by jeffreyH on 22/12/2014 18:22:34 »
In the equation below we can determine the distance traveled during an amount of time t when the gravitational acceleration equals g.
Δy = 1/2*g*t^2

If we then set g to equal

g = 2L/t^2

we can show that in one second due to cancellation of the following

1/2*2L/t^2*t^2

That we will have traveled L distance in one second. Since L is equal to 1 light second of distance this means that we will have reached light speed during this acceleration. Applying this to the parameter for earth gives us an exclusion zone around an earth sized black hole. This is the first step in deriving our new mass equation.
28
I've been reluctant to get drawn into the quantum mechanics part of the discussion because to me, Don has never clearly outlined how he gets from "consciousness collapses the wave function" to "the brain is a transceiver for immaterial nonlocal consciousness" - so what's the point of debating the interpretation of quantum mechanics for that end? His version of consciousness remains unexplained and attributeless, regardless.

Never the less, because he brings it up over and over and insists that all the really important physicists accept his interpretation, I thought I'd post some interesting quotes from the article :Does Quantum Mechanics Require A Conscious Observer? by Michael Nauenberg, (a collaborator of Bell's.) The last quote is one of Bell's.
 
"Abstract:
The view that the implementation of the principles of quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer is based on misconceptions that are described in this article."
http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness139.html


Richard P. Feynman (Nobel Prize, 1965):
Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not (Feynman et al., 1965). 

Murray Gellmann (Nobel Prize, 1969): The universe presumably couldn't care less whether human beings evolved on some obscure planet to study its history; it goes on obeying the quantum mechanical laws of physics irrespective of observation by physicists (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, 156). 

Anthony J. Leggett (Nobel Prize 2003): It may be somewhat dangerous to explain something one does not understand very well [the quantum measurement process] by invoking something [consciousness] one does not understand at all! (Leggett, 1991). 

John A. Wheeler: Caution: "Consciousness" has nothing whatsover to do with the quantum process. We are dealing with an event that makes itself known by an irreversible act of amplification, by an indelible record, an act of registration. Does that record subsequently enter into the "consciousness" of some person, some animal or some computer? Is that the first step into translating the measurement into "meaning" meaning regarded as "the joint product of all the evidence that is available to those who communicate." Then that is a separate part of the story, important but not to be confused with "quantum phenomena." (Wheeler, 1983).

John S. Bell: From some popular presentations the general public could get the impression that the very existence of the cosmos depends on our being here to observe the observables. I do not know that this is wrong. I am inclined to hope that we are indeed that important. But I see no evidence that it is so in the success of contemporary quantum theory.

So I think that it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics. Or that `information' is the real stuff of physical theory. It seems to me irresponsible to suggest that technical features of contemporary theory were anticipated by the saints of ancient religions... by introspection.

The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences. Of course this apparatus, in laboratory experiments, is chosen and adjusted by the experiments. In this sense the outcomes of experiments are indeed dependent on the mental process of the experimenters! But once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference - according to ordinary quantum mechanics - whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such 'observing' to computers, (Bell, 1984).

Nico van Kampem:
Whoever endows with more meaning than is needed for computing observable phenomena is responsible for the consequences. (van Kampen, 1988).

Well, you should try to refute my earlier quotes and excerpts on the subject , instead of posting others that say somethingelse .

I have many sources that agree with the above stuff of yours , as i have many more other sources that disagree .

There is a lots of disagreement about the interpretation of QM , which comes down to no agreement or real consensus , but the simplest and most plausible interpretation of QM was delivered by Von Neumann mainly and is still supported by an army of physicists today ,  prominent and less prominent ones ,so .

Feynman was the one who said by the way that " I can safely say that nobody understands QM ..." : the interpretation of QM remains controversial and unresolved thus , although the simplest and more plausible interpretation of QM is the one that was mentioned above .

All interpretations of QM thus are relatively "equally valid " , while the one that involves the observer effect in the above mentioned sense is more simple and plausible than the rest,even though it has not been proved conclusively  ( how can it be proved conclusively , since physicists  can't know what happens when they are not conducting measurements or conscious aware observations: when they are not looking ...or when they conduct the 1  measurement and not another one .) .

Those physicists who say that the latter is based on a misconception are the ones against it , like all materialists are , simply because it is totally incompatible with materialism .

The materialistic MW interpretation of QM  is too untestable , too absurd bizarre paradoxical to be taken seriously , and it is based all about the major materialistic false premises or belief : consciousness is a material process (well, of course consciousness cannot collapse the wave function, if it is just a material process like the rest of them are lol : how convenient for materialists .) .

Bell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge classical locality , classical determinism, and classical realism as well,as QM predicted they would  .

The classical realism , for example, that states that the properties of objects are independent of whether or not they are observed : the so-called external  objective reality "out there " is independent from the observer :  that was challenged by Bell's theorem and its related experiments exactly as QM predicted thus = the observer and the observed are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other = there is no such thing as the independent observer and independent observed : the observer and the observed are inseparable = the subjective and the objective are inseparable = science must try to modify or rather  extend and expand its rational empirical methodology and epistemology as to include the subjective element in it , not to mention that science must also modify its vocabulary on the subject accordingly , since science has to be communicated through human language as well .

Even Einstein himself was bothered mostly by the latter fact , by the fact that QM challenged classical realism .He could not bring himself to accept that ,that's why he thought that the highly successful QM had to be incomplete .He tried to prove the latter via what became to be known as the EPR (collectively Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen ) argument with Bohr .

Bell's theorem and its related experiments proved thus Einstein to be wrong and Bohr to be right : see below :

Even dlorde and alancalverd could say nothing intelligent about the following , let alone try to refute it ,despite my repetitive posting of the following ,on many occasions :  Here you go again thus :

What particular word , concept , sentence or whatever exactly can't  you understand from the following ? :

Conscious aware observation has to be made anyway , at the end of the measurement chain, as Von Neumann said ,so .

Source : "Quantum Enigma , Physics encounters consciousness : "

http://quantumenigma.com/

"According to Bell:
In his arguments with Bohr, Einstein was wrong in all the details.
Bohr understood the actual manipulation of quantum mechanics much better than Einstein. But still, in his philosophy of physics and his idea of what it is all about and what we are doing and should do, Einstein seems to be absolutely admirable. . . . [T]here is no doubt that he is, for me, the model of how one should think about physics."

.......


"Bell’s theorem and the experiments it fostered are responsible. They
did more than confi rm the weird predictions of quantum theory. The
experiments showed that no future theory could ever explain our actual
world as a “reasonable” one. Any correct future theory must describe a world in which objects do not have properties that are separately their own, independent of their “observation.” In principle, that applies to all objects. Even to us?"

............

Bell’s theorem has been called “the most profound discovery in science in
the last half of the twentieth century.” It has rubbed physics’ nose in the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Bell’s theorem and the experiments it stimulated answered what was supposedly a “merely philosophical question” in the laboratory. We now know Einstein’s “spooky actions” actually exist. Even events at the edge of the galaxy instantly influence what happens at the edge of your garden. We quickly emphasize that such influences are undetectable in any normally complex situation.Nevertheless, What are now called “EPR-Bell influences,” or entanglement, now get attention in industrial laboratories for their potential to allow incredibly powerful computers. They already provide the most secure encryption for confidential communication. Bell’s theorem has renewed interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics, and dramatically displays physics’ encounter with consciousness."

..........

.."When the experiments were done, Bell’s inequality was violated. Assumptions of reality and separability yielded a wrong prediction in our actual world.

Bell’s straw man was knocked down, as Bell expected it would be. Our world therefore does not have both reality and separability. It’s in this sense, an “unreasonable” world.
We immediately admit not understanding what the world lacking “reality” might mean. Even what “reality” itself might mean. In fact, whether or not reality is indeed required as a premise in Bell’s theorem is in dispute.
However, we need not deal with that right now.

 For our derivation of a Bell inequality, we assume a straightforward real world. Later, when we discuss the consequences of the violation of Bell’s inequality in our actual world, we’ll define a “reality” implicitly accepted by most physicists. It will leave us with a strangely connected world."
29
... basically the idea is that because there is this background radiation or energy, then it isn't so hard to believe that energy might be able to travel or bridge clear through to these other dimensions or planets (i say both because i think the people involved have already split into two opposing sides) sort of like electricity traveling through water. so anyway the relevant part is that sometimes on rare occasions people are somehow capable of absorbing this energy and even in certain minds correlating this energy as visions or dreams or some such thing  and that maybe it is even possible that we are being fed that energy from an as of yet unknown source in the universe.
I'm afraid it sounds like pseudo-scientific mystical bollocks to me. There are certainly other planets elsewhere in this universe, and there may be other universes - but in all the physics-based theories I've heard, they can't interact. Energy isn't some kind of 'stuff', it's a kind of equivalence relation; and if you accept that quantum field theory is a reasonable approximation of how reality behaves (and the evidence so far is that it's way better than that), there are no mysterious fields or forces that significantly interact with matter at our scale.

Without references or links, or more specific details, I can't really say more.
 
30
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg447012#msg447012 date=1419200516]


Cheryl :

Both the identity theory and the emergent property theory regarding the origin function nature and emergence of consciousness have been supported by a big zero empirical evidence ,no wonder , so how can you assume then that biological evolution can  account for consciousness , let alone explain it ???
Consciousness can never arise from biology : that's the main issue in consciousness studies by the way, if you haven't noticed that yet .

Looking for consciousness  in the brain is no less an inexplicably magical futile attempt than assuming that biological evolution can give rise to consciousness.


So how then do you know that the physicist making the observation in the QM experiment is conscious? Is it actually provable? Consciousness cannot arise from biology, according to you,  so his biological status as a human being is irrelevant.

You’re comfortable assuming the physicist is conscious because he demonstrates behavior consistent with consciousness, and he claims he is (although a computer could make the same claim) and he has the human neural correlates consistent with consciousness.

You did not quite get what i was saying :

I just said that consciousness  cannot be an emergent property of brain activity ,no matter how evolved the brain might be , let alone that it can be reducible to brain activity or be equated with it , cannot be a biological process , is irreducible to brain activity ,and hence cannot be the product of biology or biological evolution either .

In his book about consciousness, the one you wish to read next ,Stanislas talked so bombastically about the scientific study of consciousness and about his "global neuronal workshop " theory or global information sharing theory regarding the working of the brain and how it "gives rise" to consciousness .

By trying to map all neuronal networks or pathways or brain regions that are involved in conscious processes , he and his team hope to solve the mystery of consciousness by trying to prove the latter to be just the way the brain organizes , monitors , and controls its stream of input and inner workings spontaneously through a network of information sharing ...

Stanislas thinks that  conscious awareness  can be reduced to what he calls conscious access that should not be conflated with awakeness or vigilance and attention ....

Stanislas just reduces conscious awareness to brain activity thus through the so-called executive higher level processes of the brain in their interactions with the lower level ones  .....

Stanislas said many interesting things in that book of his though, talked about many experiments and findings , but he built all his work on the major false premise or belief = emergent property theory that's just another version of identity theory thus , unfortunately enough .

I have read just some parts of that book quickly , so , just to get the general idea behind it .The latter is not so impressive or novel as Stanislas has presented it so bombastically .


Quote
Surely all those “rigorous maths” of Von Neumann you mentioned earlier that showed that consciousness is responsible for the collapse of the wavefunction would not hinge on a flimsy and unprovable  assumption??? That doesn't sound rigorous to me.   How is behavior and neural correlates irrelevant to the determination of consciousness if your entire QM consciousness theory ultimately rests on that very same assumption?! That is quite a pickle.
[/quote]

Von Neumann proved ,through rigorous maths , that there must be a non-physical process that might be collapsing the wave function : he couldn't think of any other such process than the consciousness of the observer ,logically, at the end of the measurement chain ,since all other processes involved in measurements or "observations "  are material or physical , including the physical brain of the observer , the measuring devices , photons of light ...all the latter that cannot but remain in entangled superposition states thus .

Quote

Believe me, I’ve often wondered if you were a turing test designed by Cooper to drive us crazy, but he denies it.

Cooper or any other computer freaks or artificial intelligence maniacs lol can never copy human consciousness ,not even remotely close ,  ever , since the latter is irreducible to brain activity and cannot emerge from it either .
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines