The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 187256 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447196#msg447196 date=1419374170]
You were completely wrong about Carter's earlier understanding of  Popper's world 3 theory : see below and more + Popper and Eccles argued for the existence of a separate soul whose interactions with matter do not obey any laws of physics in their co-authored book " The self and its brain " :
It's a matter of timing and interpretation; Popper's 'Three Worlds' hierarchy was a model of emergent property interactionalism, where World 2 & 3 emerged from the physical world (World 3 via World 2) and influenced it via top-down causal interaction (which, as we discussed earlier, is a more readily accessible view of the bottom-up complexities behind emergent properties). His collaboration with Eccles resulted in a subtle and somewhat controversial development of their views - Eccles didn't believe the mind or consciousness was non-physical, but of a different world, which changed the ontological emphasis of Popper's World 2; this move away from emergent property interactionalism to a more literal 'other world' dualism was criticised, not least by Feyerabend, who noted that top-down causal influence by mental abstractions on the physical, clearly doesn't necessarily imply they are ontologically distinct, and that none of Popper's arguments for the autonomy of such abstract objects determined them to be irreducible in terms of mental or physical states and processes.

Come on : Reread that displayed excerpt on the subject , once again :  Both Popper and Eccles, in that co-authored  book of theirs (The self and its brain ...) ,  did argue for the existence of a separate soul whose interactions with matter cannot , by definition , but not obey any laws of physics : that sounds like substance dualism to me , even though Popper's 3 worlds theory does sound even "pluralistic" , at first sight at least  .

Why can't you just admit that you were completely wrong about that then ? There is no shame in admitting one's errors , to the contrary .The latter are human , too human .
 
Quote
Still, the philosophical toings an froings don't really matter; what counts is the data, the empirical evidence, which only points in one direction.

Yeah, indeed : I posted that above displayed excerpt just to make you see your previous mistake regarding Popper and Eccles , and in order to help Cheryl ,for example, understand what the consciousness -based interpretation of QM is all about ....

I don't really see any value in that kind of philosophy that was delivered by Popper on the subject anyway (his 3 worlds theory ), even though it sounds consistent with substance dualism .

Furthermore , what evidence is there to support all materialistic beliefs or the materialist theory of the nature of reality  , including all the materialist theories of consciousness .... ??? = a big zero .

Empirical evidence , either the direct or the indirect one on the subject , does point to one direction only : that leading to the non-materialist science, the substance dualistic one that is ,that embraces both the material and the immaterial in nature alike , not to the idealist  monist one  which is untenable scientifically .

Just try to face the music , dlorde : materialism is  certainly false,without a shadow of a doubt , mainly because it can never intrinsically account for consciousness ever, ,and hence materialism must be kicked out of all sciences for that matter : the sooner,  the better ,for the benefit and progress of both science and humanity as a whole .

Science's own intrinsic unique and unparalleled method and nature will be doing the job , soon enough anyway , no matter how long the mainstream scientific materialistic dogmatic priesthood can try to hold science back by continuing to impose  its materialistic dogmatic secular religion on science as science : no doubt in my mind about just that  .

P.S.: Resorting ,for example, to the subliminal and other " Thinking fast and slow " psychological insights and methods by Daniel kahneman and Amos Tversky to influence people's thoughts and behavior on the subject ,instead of doing just that via empirical evidence , is not the proper  scientific way to persuade people to change their minds .

I have my own ethical and subtle methods of persuasion that can  make people change their minds and behavior without them  being aware of just that , but this is not the place to apply them to people anyway .

This is a science forum , so.There are some people here and elsewhere that might not be able to pass even the Turing test , i guess , i don't know for sure , metaphorically speaking then , but that 's no reason to deceive  them .There can be no reason at all to do just the latter .
« Last Edit: 24/12/2014 18:44:57 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I'm not sure if these experiments in this article help clarify anything (they do provide empirical evidence contradicting some of the statements in the some of Don's recent excerpts)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.2404v2.pdf

Wow - that's quite a find Cheryl. Their paper seems to present a clear and coherent analysis of the QM/consciousness debate that corresponds almost exactly with my own - less well-formed - views on the subject.

The idea that a conscious observer should not be treated as just another quantum system always seemed unjustifiably anthropocentric. I didn't know the experiments that they describe had explicitly been done, but I thought it was likely that equivalent situations would have occurred in the thousands of variations on the double-slit, and anomalous results would have been noticed.

I would be fascinated to see an equally clear and coherent rebuttal of their paper - there's nothing quite like having one's views challenged by well-reasoned argument, with the prospect of changing them ;)
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
I'm not sure if these experiments in this article help clarify anything (they do provide empirical evidence contradicting some of the statements in the some of Don's recent excerpts)
 
 I did discover that reading about quantum mechanics while baking is a poor mix.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.2404v2.pdf

Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)
Shan Yu, a Danko Nikoli a,b
́
a Department of Neurophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Deutschordenstr. 46, 60528 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
 bFrankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, German

Abstract
"It has been suggested that consciousness plays an important role in quantum mechanics as it is necessary for the collapse of wave function during the measurement. Furthermore, this idea has spawned a symmetrical proposal: a possibility that quantum mechanics explains the emergence of consciousness in the brain. Here we formulated several predictions that follow from this hypothetical relationship and that can be empirically tested. Some of the experimental results that are already available suggest falsification of the first hypothesis. Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable. We discuss the constraints implied by the existing
evidence on the role that the human observer may play for quantum mechanics and the role that quantum mechanics may play in the observer’s consciousness."

I tried to download your pdf link many times , just to see what's its content might be all about , without much success : it doesn't work : i can't comment on it thus ,since i can't download it .

That pdf might be referring to the experiments using a robot maybe to conduct measurements at the quantum level , to see what happens : they were refuted ,since a robot cannot but be programmed to do what it does , and since the programmers or the experimenters would influence the outcome of those experiments by their pre-programmed instructions to the robot to work on, and since conscious aware observation has to be made anyway at the end of the measurement chain .

Even the consciousness -based interpretation of QM can't be proved conclusively either : how can it be ?

Nevertheless , if we assume that consciousness is a separate non-local and non-physical process that cannot , by definition, but not obey any laws of physics in its interactions with matter , that would change the whole picture in QM .That would solve the interpretation problem in QM somehow .

That's why (alancalverd lol ) or rather how William James , for example , could predict the fact that the deterministic mechanical classical physics had to be fundamentally false  and approximately correct , for example, even before Planck showed up,since classical physics could absolutely neither account for consciousness nor for its non-mechanical and non-local causal effects on matter  .

That's why one can say with certainty even that the materialistic so-called standard model of quantum field theory has to be , in its turn , fundamentally false and approximately correct too,   since it can absolutely not account for neither  consciousness nor for its non-mechanical and non-local causal effects on matter .

« Last Edit: 24/12/2014 19:11:55 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Come on : Reread that displayed excerpt on the subject , once again :  Both Popper and Eccles, in that co-authored  book of theirs (The self and its brain ...) ,  did argue for the existence of a separate soul whose interactions with matter cannot , by definition , but not obey any laws of physics : that sounds like substance dualism to me , even though Popper's 3 worlds theory does sound even "pluralistic" , at first sight at least  .

Why can't you just admit that you were completely wrong about that then ? There is no shame in admitting one's errors , to the contrary .The latter are human , too human .
The references I've seen have been careful to distinguish between Popper's property dualist approach and substance dualism. No offence, but I'll take those references over your opinion that you think it 'sounds like' substance dualism.

But frankly, I don't really care what Popper thought on this issue; we can't ask him, and it won't actually change anything.

If you really want to give me something to think about, try to find a well-reasoned and coherent rebuttal to the empirically based Yu and Nikolic paper Cheryl posted earlier. It represents my position very nicely, so that would be the best way to change my mind - which isn't as difficult as you seem to think - after all, that's how I got to the views I have now.

Also, I'd appreciate it if - call it a gesture of seasonal goodwill if you like - you'd stop with the ad-hominems and underhand implications about my motives. That unpleasant calumny says more about you than it does about me. Just address the arguments.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I tried to download your pdf link many times , just to see what's its content might be all about , without much success : it doesn't work : i can't comment on it thus ,since i can't download it .
Search for "Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)" by Shan Yu & Danko Nikolić. It's in arxiv.org, so easily accessible.

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447293#msg447293 date=1419448951]
Come on : Reread that displayed excerpt on the subject , once again :  Both Popper and Eccles, in that co-authored  book of theirs (The self and its brain ...) ,  did argue for the existence of a separate soul whose interactions with matter cannot , by definition , but not obey any laws of physics : that sounds like substance dualism to me , even though Popper's 3 worlds theory does sound even "pluralistic" , at first sight at least  .

Why can't you just admit that you were completely wrong about that then ? There is no shame in admitting one's errors , to the contrary .The latter are human , too human .
The references I've seen have been careful to distinguish between Popper's property dualist approach and substance dualism. No offence, but I'll take those references over your opinion that you think it 'sounds like' substance dualism.

Ok, I can't lay my hands on " The self and its brain " , so i can't tell really ,but Alastair here above was clear about that at least .
Tell me about your references then ,or about where did Popper develop that 3 worlds theory of his : in which book or paper of his ?  , for example .Not that i care much about that .

Quote
But frankly, I don't really care what Popper thought on this issue; we can't ask him, and it won't actually change anything.


Neither do i in fact .

Nevertheless, since Popper did co-author that above mentioned book with Eccles where it was  argued for a separate soul that , by definition , cannot but have interactions with matter without obeying any laws of physics ,that's substance dualism .

Why would Popper take part in that , if he was not a substance dualist then ?

Would you , dlorde , co-author a book about substance dualism ,or about idealist monism , for example ? I don't think so .

Quote
If you really want to give me something to think about, try to find a well-reasoned and coherent rebuttal to the empirically based Yu and Nikolic paper Cheryl posted earlier. It represents my position very nicely, so that would be the best way to change my mind - which isn't as difficult as you seem to think - after all, that's how I got to the views I have now.

Got the pdf ,finally,  thanks . I will read it , later on then , and report back to you as well as to Cheryl   ( thanks , lady ) about it .

Quote
Also, I'd appreciate it if - call it a gesture of seasonal goodwill if you like - you'd stop with the ad-hominems and underhand implications about my motives. That unpleasant calumny says more about you than it does about me. Just address the arguments.

Ok, no worries .I might have been wrong about that . Irrelevant though .

Happy holidays.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
I tried to download your pdf link many times , just to see what's its content might be all about , without much success : it doesn't work : i can't comment on it thus ,since i can't download it .
Search for "Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)" by Shan Yu & Danko Nikolić. It's in arxiv.org, so easily accessible.

Done, thanks , appreciate indeed .
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Tell me about your references then ,or about where did Popper develop that 3 worlds theory of his : in which book or paper of his ?  , for example .Not that i care much about that .
As it's Christmas:

Popper: “Three Worlds,” The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, Delivered at the University of Michigan, April 7, 1978.

He doesn't seem to explicitly define their ontological status, but on page 166-7 explains them as an evolutionary hierarchy of emergence:
Quote
To sum up, we arrive at the following picture of the universe. There is the physical universe, world 1, with its most important sub-universe, that of the living organisms. World 2, the world of conscious experience, emerges as an evolutionary product from the world of organisms. World 3, the world of the products of the human mind, emerges as an evolutionary product from world 2.

A couple more references:
Popper on the mind-body problem.

Popper's 3 Worlds of Knowledge.

I've had my fill of Popper now. Outside the philosophy of science, I find his ideas unconvincing.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Here's a Christmas gift that may help clarify what a quantum measurement is, and give some idea of why a consciousness sees an apparent wavefunction collapse because it is a single (i.e. subjective) viewpoint, and hints why Many Worlds is the simplest, most obvious interpretation.

What Does a Measurement in Quantum Mechanics Do?
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
My turkey is still frozen!!
 

Online alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4713
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
What do you expect, living in Canada? Merry Christmas!
« Last Edit: 25/12/2014 21:27:02 by alancalverd »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl , dlorde :

I have just sent  an email to Fred Kuttner (1 of the authors of quantum enigma ...) regarding that above mentioned experiment that seems  to have refuted the consciousness-based interpretation of QM .

Let's wait for what he has to say about just that .

Fred seems also to have answered someone regarding the above by saying :

Quote : "...a reply from Fred Kuttner, one of the Quantum Enigma authors:

"I had not yet seen this paper. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. If you have read our book, you know that we claim neither that consciousness is needed to explain quantum mechanics ( though that is a common misinterpretation of our argument) nor vice versa. Rather, we claim that the action of free will in the choice of experiment is an encounter between consciousness and the experimental situation."
End quote .

I can't verify the authenticity of the above thus .

Quote garnered from the link below :

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/quantum-mechanics-needs-no-consciousness-and-the-other-way-around.961/

Interesting discussion on the subject they have there on skeptico-forum.com .

I wonder also how the above mentioned experiment that seems to have refuted the consciousness-based interpretation of QM can explain Dean Radin's double slit experiment that says the contrary,to mention just that one  :

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2014/03/psychophysical-interactions-with-double.html?m=1

It is thus still an open question ,as the above mentioned experiment the link to which has been provided by Cheryl   thus has to be replicated also , or as someone from the above mentioned forum said on the subject as a reply to someone else :


Quote : "...

   
Quote
So... no need for consciousness to understand QM, maybe. Radin's experiments seem to indicate the contrary, but there's need for further independent replication.

They don't need to be mutually exclusive. Quantum Mechanics may not require consciousness to cause a collapse of the wavefunction ( as the paper showed with the delayed choise quantum eraser that can easily exhibit interference and non-interference pattern merely by turning the beams of light potentially distinguishable or by keeping the information out of a possible way of knowing it ), however that doesn't mean consciousness cannot collapse the wavefunction.

Think for example, in a table. A table doesn't require a human to move it to be moved, however, humans can move tables from time to time by pushing them.

QM requiring consciousness can turn into very nasty contradictions and problems if one wills to take the issue furth enough, as one can see in Wigner Friend though experiment as a possible outcome of the decoherence required to see classical mechanics and the consciousness required for it. Quantum "God-like" consciousness have the terrible problem that we may never get to see quantum mechanics at all, or that the past doesn't exists, or many other bizarre scenarios that doesn't stick to well, epistemologically and ontologically speaking. "[/i] End quote .

See this also on the subject :

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-quantum-mechanics-need-a-conscious-observer.731583/

And this :

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality

The issue is not yet conclusively settled thus .


I will have to make some research about all the above thus and more .

Cheers.



« Last Edit: 26/12/2014 20:12:42 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Feynman said something like "the double slit experiment is the only mystery in QM ..." .

There are many interprétations of the same experiment lol :






To mention just those of Feynman, Khalili ....
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Fred seems also to have answered someone regarding the above by saying :

Quote : "...a reply from Fred Kuttner, one of the Quantum Enigma authors:

"... If you have read our book, you know that we claim neither that consciousness is needed to explain quantum mechanics ( though that is a common misinterpretation of our argument) nor vice versa. Rather, we claim that the action of free will in the choice of experiment is an encounter between consciousness and the experimental situation."
End quote .

I can't verify the authenticity of the above thus .
Haven't you read the book (from which you quote so freely) ?   ;)

Quote
I wonder also how the above mentioned experiment that seems to have refuted the consciousness-based interpretation of QM can explain Dean Radin's double slit experiment that says the contrary,to mention just that one
I would strongly recommend that you take anything to do with Dean Radin, particularly his own publications, with a very large pinch of salt indeed (be skeptical and apply critical thinking). I've already posted some instances of basic flaws found in his work that seem beyond careless or accidental. Proceed with extreme caution.

Quote
.."They don't need to be mutually exclusive. Quantum Mechanics may not require consciousness to cause a collapse of the wavefunction ..., however that doesn't mean consciousness cannot collapse the wavefunction."
Ah yes. The 'giving ground' defence. I recall this was what was said about Uri Geller when all his tricks and illusions had been performed by illusionists - "Just because they can do it by sleight of hand doesn't mean Geller isn't using paranormal powers". True, but extremely unlikely. Shortly after, Geller stopped claiming he had 'special powers' and started calling himself an 'entertainer' (with an air of mystery).

Consciousness is a process, not a quantum system, so it can't itself collapse anything. A brain (conscious, unconscious, alive, or dead) can be considered a quantum system, so it is eligible for quantum interaction and so, wavefunction collapse (if you prefer that interpretation), just like any other quantum system. It only needs to be alive and conscious to register the results.
« Last Edit: 27/12/2014 15:17:12 by dlorde »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Feynman said something like "the double slit experiment is the only mystery in QM ..." .



I agree. And one thing I've never understood about quantum woo, is the need to embellish quantum mechanics with mysticism, as if it weren't weird or amazing enough. The one sentence that really stands out in the article is I linked to is: "Because as long as
the “which-path” is in principle unobtainable, the wave
function does not collapse, regardless of the interaction
of the system with the environment (e.g., see Kim et al.,
2000 and other “quantum eraser” experiments)."
 

Online alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4713
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
How about a brief reality check?

Don: imagine a dual-slit experiment setup: source, slits, detector array, display. Let the source emit just one electron, then switch off. What does the display show?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447428#msg447428 date=1419693296]
Fred seems also to have answered someone regarding the above by saying :

Quote : "...a reply from Fred Kuttner, one of the Quantum Enigma authors:

"... If you have read our book, you know that we claim neither that consciousness is needed to explain quantum mechanics ( though that is a common misinterpretation of our argument) nor vice versa. Rather, we claim that the action of free will in the choice of experiment is an encounter between consciousness and the experimental situation."
End quote .

I can't verify the authenticity of the above thus .
Haven't you read the book (from which you quote so freely) ?   ;)

I have just read some relevant parts of it .That's mainly why i said that i could not verify the authenticity of that alleged reply of Kuttner on the subject , since the authors of "Quantum enigma ..." said  , for example  :

Quote : " ...Quantum mechanics is the most battle-tested theory in science. Not a single violation of its predictions has ever been demonstrated, no matter how preposterous the predictions might seem.

However, anyone concerned with what the theory means faces a philosophical enigma: the socalled measurement problem, or the problem of observation … before you look we could have proven—with an interference experiment—that each atom was a wave equally in both boxes.

After you look it was in a single box. It was thus your observation that created the reality of each atom’s existence in a particular box. Before your observation only probability existed. But it was not the probability that an actual object existed in a particular place (as in the classical shell game)—it was just the probability of a future observation of such an object, which does not include the assumption that the object existed there prior to its observation. This hard-to-accept observer-created reality is the measurement problem in quantum mechanics.....
End quote .

Who can misunderstand the above then that's totally inconsistent with that alleged reply of Kuttner .?

Let's wait for the answer of the latter regarding my email sent to him earlier on on the same subject thus .

Even in the above mentioned experiment that seems to require no consciousness to collapse the wave function , the scientists behind it did mention the authors of "Quantum enigma ...",for example,  by name as passionate supporters of the consciousness-based interpretation of QM .

Furthermore , even your beloved Joy Jim was honest enough as to admit that anyone who can solve the mystery of the double slit experiment does deserve a Nobel prize :


Not to mention the fact that there are also some other physicists who think they can solve that mystery by delivering some theories of theirs on the subject , like the one that tries to explain the 2-slit experiment via the fact that the universe is expanding ...

Quote
Quote
I wonder also how the above mentioned experiment that seems to have refuted the consciousness-based interpretation of QM can explain Dean Radin's double slit experiment that says the contrary,to mention just that one
I would strongly recommend that you take anything to do with Dean Radin, particularly his own publications, with a very large pinch of salt indeed (be skeptical and apply critical thinking). I've already posted some instances of basic flaws found in his work that seem beyond careless or accidental. Proceed with extreme caution.

Yeah, right : anything that would contradict your materialistic beliefs on the subject is by definition flawed or worse : that's a typical pattern of materialists by the way : so amusing  , lame and dull .

If you , as a scientist , would try to become as rigorous as Radin has been , you would  go a long way .

Quote
Quote
.."They don't need to be mutually exclusive. Quantum Mechanics may not require consciousness to cause a collapse of the wavefunction ..., however that doesn't mean consciousness cannot collapse the wavefunction."
Ah yes. The 'giving ground' defence. I recall this was what was said about Uri Geller when all his tricks and illusions had been performed by illusionists - "Just because they can do it by sleight of hand doesn't mean Geller isn't using paranormal powers". True, but extremely unlikely. Shortly after, Geller stopped claiming he had 'special powers' and started calling himself an 'entertainer' (with an air of mystery).

Already forgot about Bell's theorem and its related experiments that challenged classical locality,classical determinism and classical realism as well ?

See this on the subject then :

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality

Oh, come on : Stop comparing potatoes to bananas : the mystery of the double slit experiment is still unresolved : the above mentioned experiment that seems to have refuted the consciousness-based interpretation of QM in 2010 was no conclusive proof for that  :

You really should let go of your materialistic dogmatic irrational ridiculous and unscientific certainty by reading this great book on the subject : we should always be aware of the existence of the unknown that cannot be ruled out ,no matter how predictable we think events are , be aware  of the existence  and unexpected  rise of black swans : even the very history of science , its discoveries , progress ...were the results of the unexpected and unpredicted unpredictable rise of black swans in the above mentioned sense :

http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness/dp/081297381X

Furthermore , see the following double slit experiments on the subject that were conducted after 2010 and that "argued " for idealism :

http://realitysandwich.com/217334/is-quantum-physics-a-sort-of-idealism/

http://realitysandwich.com/217334/is-quantum-physics-a-sort-of-idealism/

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/iqoqi-results-lend-support-to-idealism.607/page-2#post-13887

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/iqoqi-results-lend-support-to-idealism.607/page-2#post-13886

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/physicist-chris-isham-considers-jungian-idealism.643/

See this : The strangeness of the 2 slit experiment "explained". It's all "because the universe is expanding ":


See this too , while you are at it :


To mention just the above thus .

Quote
Consciousness is a process, not a quantum system, so it can't itself collapse anything. A brain (conscious, unconscious, alive, or dead) can be considered a quantum system, so it is eligible for quantum interaction and so, wavefunction collapse (if you prefer that interpretation), just like any other quantum system. It only needs to be alive and conscious to register the results.

Since when have you become such an expert of QM ? What a nerve .

Even physicists , even prominent ones , do agree to disagree about the interpretation of the double slit experiment ,about the measurement or interpretation problem in QM .The latter is still unresolved .

How do you know thus that about consciousness  ? You don't even know what consciousness is .Nobody does in fact .

Not to mention the fact that even the mystery of the double slit experiment has not been solved yet ,conclusively that is .

Consciousness is indeed a process , but a non-physical and a non-local process that can have instantaneous non-local and non-mechanical causal effects on matter , and that without obeying any laws of physics whatsoever , per definition thus ,since materialism is false mainly because it cannot account for consciousness.

And since consciousness has to have that kind of causal effects on matter , so logically, whenever it observes a quantum system ,it has to interact with it and change it accordingly .How ? that remains to be detected and explained somehow .

Consciousness that does interact with the physical brain , for example, too : consciousness has to have causal effects on matter   .So, how can consciousness have no causal effects whenever "observing" quantum systems ? Consciousness that cannot but be non-local ,non -physical while interacting with matter via a non-mechanical causation without having to obey any laws of physics by definition ,and hence consciousness has to interact with the physical brain at the quantum level ,since classical physics seems to be "the boos " at the macroscopic level, even though the whole universe seems to be quantum "mechanical " ...

See the following on the subject : i don't have to agree with it either ,but who am i anyway ?  lol :

http://www.closertotruth.com/series/quantum-physics-consciousness

Consciousness might turn out to be the next unpredicted or unpredictable undetectable black swan that might turn  physics and science as a whole on their heads , soon enough , who knows ?

Once again , if QM itself cannot somehow account for consciousness in the above mentioned sense and for its non-local non-mechanical causal effects on matter , then QM has to be , in its turn, fundamentally false and approximately correct .

We might be needing even better physics thus to account for consciousness and for its causal effects on matter .

But , first , let physicists try to explain physics to us : they can't even explain physics , let alone consciousness .

Let them try first to solve the mystery of the double slit experiment , the measurement or interpretation or observation problem in QM thus ,first .

P.S.: I have been having an extremely slow internet connection that irritated me and gave me a big headache : that has implications regarding the quality of the above .
« Last Edit: 29/12/2014 20:41:41 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
How about a brief reality check?

Don: imagine a dual-slit experiment setup: source, slits, detector array, display. Let the source emit just one electron, then switch off. What does the display show?

How about a brief "reality" check ,physicist ? :

Already forgot about Bell's theorem and its related experiments that challenged classical determinism, classical locality and classical realism as well ?

See this on the subject :

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality :

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality

Furthermore , Jim Al Khalili ,for example, was at least honest enough as to admit that anyone who can solve the mystery of the double slit experiment deserves a Nobel prize :


« Last Edit: 29/12/2014 20:30:13 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Feynman said something like "the double slit experiment is the only mystery in QM ..." .



I agree. And one thing I've never understood about quantum woo, is the need to embellish quantum mechanics with mysticism, as if it weren't weird or amazing enough. The one sentence that really stands out in the article is I linked to is: "Because as long as
the “which-path” is in principle unobtainable, the wave
function does not collapse, regardless of the interaction
of the system with the environment (e.g., see Kim et al.,
2000 and other “quantum eraser” experiments)."

For your info : the mystery of the double slit experiment is still unresolved (That's the interpretation , measurement or observation problem in QM , needless to add thus ) , despite that experiment to which you have provided a link earlier on : that's no conclusive proof for the alleged claim that consciousness has no causal effects on matter ,or for the claim that the observed and the observer are separate or independent processes from each other (classical realism : Bell's theorem and its related experiments have challenged that at least ) ,to mention just that thus .

QM has shown , for example , that the whole universe , including ourselves thus , is interconnected somehow (not in the new age sense at least lol ) ,so how can we as observers of this universe and of ourselves and each other be independent from the observed universe of which we make part : how can the observed be independent of the observer : there is no such thing as the independent observer and independent observed = they are inescapably and inseparably intertwined with each other , logically .

What mysticism are you talking about then ? Anything that goes beyond materialism is by definition mysticism, or is 'supernatural , paranormal, magical ..." , while materialism itself is the epitome of reversed inexplicable magic ;the reductionist one .

Well, since materialism is false , simply because it can never intrinsically account for consciousness , then the latter cannot be a material process at least .

It has to be non-physical and non-local , as many indirect empirical evidence proved it to be,as it has , by definition, to have non-mechanical non-local causal  effects on matter without obeying any laws of physics whatsoever ,and since the whole universe is quantum "mechanical " , consciousness cannot but have that kind of causal effects on the quantum systems as well as on the macroscopic level ,somehow .How ? nobody knows that yet , if ever : that might turn out to be the next unpredicted and unexpected unknown that might turn physics and science as a whole on their heads : the next black swan thus : stop being so "certain " of your false materialistic beliefs then and stop seeing the world from their exclusive key hole lens , they are no science :  even the latter's history , progress and discoveries were/are and will always be  the results of many unpredicted unknown black swans :

http://www.amazon.com/The-Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness/dp/081297381X


What's so mystical about all that ,or about that above mentioned nature of consciousness , since the latter cannot be a material process , and hence materialism is false ,which means that consciousness has to be non-physical and non -local while having  non-mechanical and non-local causal effects on matter without obeying any laws of physics , by definition  .

It's a bit like saying that sine some people don't understand how wireless cell phones or internet might work , then they're right in asserting that 's just inexplicable magic or mysticism lol ( I have deliberately turned that materialistic analogy upside down to serve my own purposes .)

« Last Edit: 29/12/2014 21:23:46 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile


Let them try first to solve the mystery of the double slit experiment , the measurement or interpretation or observation problem in QM thus ,first .




Why "first"? What question about it must be answered or solved first before excluding, (as they seemed to) that consciousness itself collapses the wavefunction?

 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Quote
I would strongly recommend that you take anything to do with Dean Radin, particularly his own publications, with a very large pinch of salt indeed (be skeptical and apply critical thinking). I've already posted some instances of basic flaws found in his work that seem beyond careless or accidental. Proceed with extreme caution.
Yeah, right : anything that would contradict your materialistic beliefs on the subject is by definition flawed or worse : that's a typical pattern of materialists by the way : so amusing  , lame and dull .

If you , as a scientist , would try to become as rigorous as Radin has been , you would  go a long way .
If I was as rigorous as Radin, I too would have to make a living on the fringes of pseudoscience, rather than being comfortably retired.

But seriously, many moons ago, when all this was fields, I had great enthusiasm for Jahn and the Pricenton (PEAR) team, I had great respect for Sheldrake, and had hopes that Radin and his like would come up with fascinating, if not world-changing, results (probably much as the  'hippie' physicists that tested Bell's Inequalities felt when they found them to be violated). But it didn't happen. It fizzled out, and the ones who could take the disappointment moved onto other things, and the ones who couldn't persisted, and made careers as mavericks or selling pseudoscience to the gullible, according to their nature. 

It was only when, on finally wondering what had happened to all those years of claims and promises of imminent breakthroughs, I did some background research and discovered the detailed critiques, failed replications, methodological flaws, statistical abuses (I'm looking at you, Radin), etc. So, with delicious irony, what I learned from those failures (and others) was partly responsible for my current skepticism of the paranormal, and got me into looking at recent research in the relevant areas - which only served to reinforce that skepticism.

But hey, by all means ignore my advice - carry on with your uncritical acceptance of Radin & co's product, and see what comes of it. Let me know when any of it produces something useful. Anything at all.

Quote
Already forgot about Bell's theorem and its related experiments that challenged classical locality,classical determinism and classical realism as well ?
Who could forget? I still remember the excitement at the time [8D]

Quote
You really should let go of your materialistic dogmatic irrational ridiculous and unscientific certainty by reading this great book on the subject : we should always be aware of the existence of the unknown that cannot be ruled out ,no matter how predictable we think events are , be aware  of the existence  and unexpected  rise of black swans : even the very history of science , its discoveries , progress ...were the results of the unexpected and unpredicted unpredictable rise of black swans in the above mentioned sense :
I agree entirely - my current position is necessarily provisional. For the last four years I've been hoping the AWARE study would turn up something interesting, but no. I've already told you precisely what would be sufficient to make me seriously reconsider it, so go to it.

Quote
Since when have you become such an expert of QM ? What a nerve .
You don't need to be an expert to know what a quantum system is Don.

Quote
How do you know thus that about consciousness  ? You don't even know what consciousness is .Nobody does in fact .
...
Consciousness is indeed a process...
 
ROFL! you're a funny guy, Don  [:o)]

Quote
but a non-physical and a non-local process that can have instantaneous non-local and non-mechanical causal effects on matter , and that without obeying any laws of physics whatsoever , per definition thus
You realise that is a pretty solid definition of magic, right?   ???

You don't really mean consciousness is magic, do you?

Quote
P.S.: I have been having an extremely slow internet connection that irritated me and gave me a big headache : that has implications regarding the quality of the above .
Really? the speed of your internet connection affects the quality of your posts?

You poor thing, that must be awful - and it seems to happen so often...  ;)
« Last Edit: 30/12/2014 10:46:31 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile


Let them try first to solve the mystery of the double slit experiment , the measurement or interpretation or observation problem in QM thus ,first .


Why "first"? What question about it must be answered or solved first before excluding, (as they seemed to) that consciousness itself collapses the wavefunction?

lol

Well, physicists should first try to explain physics .They can't even explain the latter , let alone consciousness ( the latter goes beyond physics and physicists , needless to add ) , as Wigner said.We might even be needing better physics than QM to account for consciousness ,as he added as well .

Physicists  should thus first try to explain physics thus before concluding that consciousness is not required in QM ,since nobody knows what consciousness is , in the first place to begin with  .

Even science itself cannot even exist , let alone function or progress without consciousness through which scientists came up with QM , in the first place to begin with , via applying the scientific method .

Ironically enough , QM can never be understood without reference to the mind , since conscious aware observation has to be made , after all, at the end of the measurement chain ,as Von Neumann used to say .

Not to mention the fact that consciousness has to be non-physical at least and non-local as well ,since materialism is false , consciousness as a separate process ( substance dualism must be replaced by process dualism ,for example , since matter and mind as separate and different  from each other processes in kind  that interact mutually with each other are no substances , but processes ) that has non-local and non-mechanical causal effects on matter , without obeying any laws of physics , by definition thus .

So, how can consciousness in the above mentioned sense not have any causal effects on the observed matter at the quantum level then ?

How can the observed be independent of the observer since both are supposed to make part of the same universe ( The psycho-physical universe .) ?






« Last Edit: 30/12/2014 17:56:38 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447595#msg447595 date=1419900429]
Quote
I would strongly recommend that you take anything to do with Dean Radin, particularly his own publications, with a very large pinch of salt indeed (be skeptical and apply critical thinking). I've already posted some instances of basic flaws found in his work that seem beyond careless or accidental. Proceed with extreme caution.
Yeah, right : anything that would contradict your materialistic beliefs on the subject is by definition flawed or worse : that's a typical pattern of materialists by the way : so amusing  , lame and dull .

If you , as a scientist , would try to become as rigorous as Radin has been , you would  go a long way .
If I was as rigorous as Radin, I too would have to make a living on the fringes of pseudoscience, rather than being comfortably retired.

Oh, come on : you said the same thing regarding the work of PEAR , regarding that of Sheldrake , regarding those of other non-materialist scientists : that's a typical materialistic pattern  whenever materialism gets contradicted , challenged or refuted .

For your information , the dogmatic materialistic belief system at the very heart of current science is the epitome of pseudo-science at the very heart of current science , ironically enough .

Quote
But seriously, many moons ago, when all this was fields, I had great enthusiasm for Jahn and the Pricenton (PEAR) team, I had great respect for Sheldrake, and had hopes that Radin and his like would come up with fascinating, if not world-changing, results (probably much as the  'hippie' physicists that tested Bell's Inequalities felt when they found them to be violated). But it didn't happen. It fizzled out, and the ones who could take the disappointment moved onto other things, and the ones who couldn't persisted, and made careers as mavericks or selling pseudoscience to the gullible, according to their nature.
 

A lots of exciting and fascinating things have been happening ,thanks to the works of many non-materialist scientists .

You're just too a dogmatic materialist to either notice or acknowledge that fact .

Quote
It was only when, on finally wondering what had happened to all those years of claims and promises of imminent breakthroughs, I did some background research and discovered the detailed critiques, failed replications, methodological flaws, statistical abuses (I'm looking at you, Radin), etc. So, with delicious irony, what I learned from those failures (and others) was partly responsible for my current skepticism of the paranormal, and got me into looking at recent research in the relevant areas - which only served to reinforce that skepticism.


Yeah, right : despite all the obvious and overwhelming evidence against materialism , you can't but remain a materialist as if materialism has been 'scientific " .

What evidence is there for all materialist claims at all levels ? = a big zero ,if you haven't noticed just that yet .

Quote
But hey, by all means ignore my advice - carry on with your uncritical acceptance of Radin & co's product, and see what comes of it. Let me know when any of it produces something useful. Anything at all.

You know what i do think of such 'advices " that come from materialists such as yourself .
Apply that advice of yours to your false materialistic dogmatic beliefs first , the ones you have been confusing and equating with science all along, ironically enough .

Quote
Quote
Already forgot about Bell's theorem and its related experiments that challenged classical locality,classical determinism and classical realism as well ?
Who could forget? I still remember the excitement at the time [8D]

You just can't remember the fact that whenever any empirical evidence , scientific theories ...that might be contradicting , refuting or challenging the mainstream materialist 'scientific world view " , whenever they would raise their heads , they get almost totally ignored as such or worse , for obvious materialistic "reasons " .

Quote
Quote
You really should let go of your materialistic dogmatic irrational ridiculous and unscientific certainty by reading this great book on the subject : we should always be aware of the existence of the unknown that cannot be ruled out ,no matter how predictable we think events are , be aware  of the existence  and unexpected  rise of black swans : even the very history of science , its discoveries , progress ...were the results of the unexpected and unpredicted unpredictable rise of black swans in the above mentioned sense :
I agree entirely - my current position is necessarily provisional. For the last four years I've been hoping the AWARE study would turn up something interesting, but no. I've already told you precisely what would be sufficient to make me seriously reconsider it, so go to it.

No , you're just kidding yourself : as a materialist dogmatic scientist , it would have to take Jesus himself to return to earth to make you change your mind lol ...maybe, just maybe .

Despite the fact that materialism, together with all its extensions, is false ,that doesn't bother you in any way , let alone make you think or even consider changing your mind on the subject .

Quote
Quote
Since when have you become such an expert of QM ? What a nerve .
You don't need to be an expert to know what a quantum system is Don.

I was not referring to that . I was rather referring to the fact that you always sound so certain (unscientific dogmatic attitude of yours ) of your materialistic interpretation of QM and the rest  ,even though there is no consensus at all regarding the latter , not even remotely close thus , as if the very existence of the unpredicted unpredictable and undetected undetectable black swans is a myth .

Some black swans will be destroying all your dogmatic materialistic beliefs ,soon enough , if you live long enough to witness just that .

Quote
Quote
How do you know thus that about consciousness  ? You don't even know what consciousness is .Nobody does in fact .
...
Consciousness is indeed a process...
 
ROFL! you're a funny guy, Don  [:o)]

I see no contradiction in that : consciousness is a separate non-physical and non -local process ....But nobody knows what consciousness really is anyway .

In my humble opinion, i think that science will never be able to know what consciousness ,the soul or whatever might be exactly ,ever .


Quote
Quote
but a non-physical and a non-local process that can have instantaneous non-local and non-mechanical causal effects on matter , and that without obeying any laws of physics whatsoever , per definition thus
You realise that is a pretty solid definition of magic, right?   ???

You don't really mean consciousness is magic, do you?

If you're interested in inexplicable 'scientific " magic , all you have to do is check out your own "scientific " materialism : stop projecting thus .

Furthermore , there is nothing in science or in its methodology and epistemology that prevents it from exploring the existence of any phenomena of any kind , be it souls , spirits or any other immaterial phenomena .

Naturalistic science and its naturalistic methodology and epistemology do go beyond materialism and hence can be either dualistic , idealistic , theistic or otherwise .

Science is no synonymous of materialism,wake up, Alice .

Science is all about methodology and epistemology , not about materialism or any other ism : science should be metaphysically neutral thus = should be neither materialist nor otherwise, even though science has been materialist ,ironically and paradoxically enough , for relatively so long now and counting  .

Materialism is just a false outdated and superseded 19th century ideology that has been equated with science , ironically and paradoxically enough ,while  turning science into a dogmatic ideology or secular atheistic religion,unfortunately enough  .

Science that should be all the opposite of the above : that should be all about dispelling ideologies and dogmas , falsehood , half -truths ...

Science that should certainly not be an ideology or a secular dogmatic materialistic religion as it has been for relatively so long now and counting ...

But then again , science itself is just a human social activity ,and to some extent just a cultural one as well (see how the cultural Eurocentric materialism has been equated with science for relatively so long now and counting thus ) .

Metaphysically neutral science is a myth or an utopia thus ,so far at least .

Quote
Quote
P.S.: I have been having an extremely slow internet connection that irritated me and gave me a big headache : that has implications regarding the quality of the above .
Really? the speed of your internet connection affects the quality of your posts?

You poor thing, that must be awful - and it seems to happen so often...  ;)

You're a real jerk ,you know that ? A depressing dogmatic fool who thinks  himself to be wise or funny .

Or as your ancestor Shakespeare said : " A fool thinks himself to be wise , but a wise man knows himself to be a fool " ,something like that at least .
« Last Edit: 30/12/2014 18:57:45 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
It all comes down to the mind -body problem , including at the level of the interpretation of QM thus :

"MATERIALIST THEORIES OF MIND" By Chris Carter :

The doctrine of materialism is one of the implications of taking classical physics to be a complete description of all of nature, including human beings.* It is essentially the idea that all events have a physical cause; in other words, that all events are caused by the interaction between particles of matter and force fields. It follows from this that mind has no causal role in nature but is at most merely a useless by-product produced by the brain, and so in short, all that matters is matter.

There are three basic materialist approaches: the mind does not exist, the mind is identical to the brain, or the mind is a useless by-product produced by the brain.
The eliminative materialists seriously argue that consciousness and the self do not exist, but that children are indoctrinated by “folk psychology” into believing that they exist as conscious, thinking beings.

 For instance, journalist Michael Lemonick writes, “Despite our every instinct to the contrary, there is one thing that consciousness is not: some entity deep inside the brain that corresponds to the ‘self,’ some kernel of awareness that runs the show, as the ‘man behind the curtain’ manipulated the illusion of a powerful magician in The Wizard of Oz. After more than a century of looking for it, brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain, and that it simply doesn’t exist.”

This may sound bizarre, but since materialism cannot account for consciousness, some materialists simply deny their own existence as conscious beings. They are driven to this act of desperation by their conviction that science, which they understand as applied materialism, supports them. Note the self-refuting nature of this position: If I believe that consciousness does not exist, then how could my belief exist? If my consciousness does not exist, then neither does my belief. And if my professed belief is nothing more than a machine going through its motions, then you have no reason to accept it as correct.

The identity theory holds great attraction for many philosophers, as it seems to offer a simple and easy solution to the problem. It says, for instance, that the subjective awareness of a red patch is objectively the movement of particles taking place in one’s brain. Some identity theorists hope that neuroscience will one day be able to map out the brain states that correspond to mental states, so that we will be able to simply describe mental activity as the activity of the brain. But Beauregard points out why this is a false hope:

Every human mind and brain moves through life differently, changing as it goes, so the information obtained for his brain would not apply to anyone else’s—or even to his own brain at a later time! This point bears repeating because it is so contrary to materialist hopes that it is often ignored in public discussions. One outcome, for example, is that [Jean-Peirre] Changeux’s view that mind states and brain states are completely identical is untestable and lacks predictive value.

Any theory that is untestable and lacks predictive value does not belong to science, but rather to philosophy at best, ideology at worse. And it does get worse. How are we even to understand the assertion that thoughts and brain states are really one and the same? If they are the same, then every characteristic of one must be a characteristic of the other; but this leads to nonsense, as physicist and philosopher C. D. Broad pointed out.

There are some questions which can be raised about the characteristics of being a molecular movement, which it is nonsensical to raise about the characteristics of being an awareness of a red patch; and conversely. About a molecular movement it is perfectly reasonable to raise the question: Is it swift or slow, straight or circular, and so on? About the awareness of a red patch it is nonsensical to ask whether it is a swift or slow awareness, a straight or a circular awareness, and so on. Conversely, it is reasonable to ask about an awareness of a red patch whether it is a clear or a confused awareness; but it is nonsense to ask of a molecular movement whether it is a clear or a confused movement. Thus the attempt to argue that “being a sensation of so and so” and “being a bit of bodily behavior of such and such a kind” are just two names for the same characteristic is evidently hopeless.

Eliminative materialism and identity theory are varieties of monism, the idea that only one kind of substance exists in the universe. A materialist monist believes that matter is all that exists, in contrast to a dualist, who believes that reality contains two sorts of essences: psychical and physical. The materialist believes that the full authority of science supports his position and that dualism is an outmoded legacy of a prescientific era, but many modern scientists disagree. Astronomer V. A. Firsoff writes, “To assert there is only matter and no mind is the most illogical of propositions, quite apart from the findings of modern physics, which show that there is no matter in the traditional meaning of the term.”

 As we saw earlier, many quantum theorists were driven to the conclusion that prior to conscious observation, matter exists only in a half-real state as possibility waves, without definite values for dynamic attributes such as position or velocity. Hence Walker’s remark that “duality is already a part of physics.”

Wolfgang Pauli, one of the major contributors to quantum theory, concluded, “The only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality—the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical—as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously.”

Epiphenomenalism does not deny the existence of consciousness, but holds that the interaction between the brain and mind runs strictly one way, from brain to mind. This view was popularized by Darwin’s friend and colleague Thomas Huxley, who described the mind as a mere epiphenomena—a useless by-product of brain activity. According to this theory, free will and intent are only illusions.
Although Darwin liked and admired Huxley, he would have none of this. Supporting Huxley’s opinion would have contradicted his life’s work, as Karl Popper rightly pointed out.

The theory of natural selection constitutes a strong argument against Huxley’s theory of the one-sided action of body on mind and for the mutual interaction of mind and body. Not only does the body act on the mind—for example, in perception, or in sickness—but our thoughts, our expectations, and our feelings may lead to useful actions in the physical world. If Huxley had been right, mind would be useless. But then it could not have evolved … by natural selection.

So from a strictly Darwinian approach, the mental powers of animals and men should be expected to lead to useful actions and should therefore be a causal influence in nature. According to this account, perceptions, emotions, judgments, and thoughts all have a real effect. And the more highly developed the mental powers, the more causal impact they should be expected to have.

However, Darwin’s viewpoint was thought to conflict with the physics of his time, which could specify no mechanism by which the mental could influence the physical. Arguments based on physics, being a more “basic” science than biology, were thought to trump arguments based on evolutionary theory. However, as we have seen, modern physics allows nonmechanical causation and has eliminated the causal closure of the physical.

Harold Morowitz, professor of molecular biophysics and biochemistry at Yale University, pointed out that while biologists have been relentlessly moving toward the hard-core materialism that characterized nineteenth-century physics, “at the same time, physicists, faced with compelling experimental evidence, have been moving away from strictly mechanical models of the universe to a view that sees the mind as playing an integral role in all physical events. It is as if the two disciplines were on fast-moving trains, going in opposite directions and not noticing what is happening across the tracks.”

 For Beauregard, this raises questions: “If physics fails to support biology, which discipline should rethink its position—physics or biology? On a practical note, can we reasonably expect much progress in neuroscience, given the problems, if we do not begin by reassessing the materialism that has characterized our hypotheses for decades?”.

Materialist theories of mind are based on the assumption that brain activity, and hence mental activity, is driven from below by the deterministic, observer-independent motions of elementary particles in the brain, as described by classical physics. But we have known since the early years of the twentieth century that classical physics fails drastically at the atomic and subatomic levels, and that the behavior of such particles is indeterministic and observer dependent.

The irony here is that while materialists often describe themselves as promoting a scientific outlook, it is possible to be a materialist only by ignoring the most successful scientific theory of matter the world has yet seen. The materialist believes that consciousness is created by matter, yet the best theory we have about the nature of matter seems to require that consciousness exists independently of matter. And materialist models of mind utterly fail to answer the hard problem: why should consciousness exist in the first place and then constantly deceive us as to its function?.

Materialist philosopher of mind John Searle has lamented the bankruptcy of most work in the philosophy of mind and has candidly suggested that the motivation behind acceptance of materialist views is more emotional than rational.

Acceptance of the current views is motivated not so much by an independent conviction of their truth as by a terror of what are apparently the only alternatives. That is, the choice we are tacitly presented with is between a ‘scientific’ approach, as represented by one or another of the current versions of ‘materialism,’ and an ‘anti-scientific’ approach, as represented by Cartesianism or some other traditional religious conception of the mind...."End quote
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
It all comes down to the mind -body problem , including at the level of the interpretation of QM thus .

Since materialism is false , once again, simply because it can intrinsically never account for consciousness,let alone explain it ,  then the latter cannot be a material process ,and hence it has to be a separate non-physical and non-local process that has non-mechanical and non-local causal effects on matter while obeying no laws of physics whatsoever ,since both the identity theory and  the so-called emergent property theory regarding the origin function emergence and nature of consciousness are false .

All that has to have implications for the interpretation of QM, for example, to mention just that .





 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length