The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 186555 times)

Offline cheryl j

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

"MATERIALIST THEORIES OF MIND" By Chris Carter :


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.

You realize this contradicts everything you said earlier in response to my Ten Points, about consciousness and the mind not having an evolutionary and biological origin?

Quote
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.

Yep.
Quote
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.
That summary is  just wrong. Darwin did discuss behavior as a trait that could be selected for, in animals and in man, and there was no argument from physics that conflicted with it. All that was missing from his theory at the time was the mechanism of DNA, but good data is still good data, even without all the pieces of the puzzle.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg447625#msg447625 date=1419969778]

"MATERIALIST THEORIES OF MIND" By Chris Carter :


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.

You realize this contradicts everything you said earlier in response to my Ten Points, about consciousness and the mind not having an evolutionary and biological origin?

You do realize that the above is inconsistent with all materialist theories of mind , do you ? that consider the mind as just a useless side effect or a by -product of evolution ,an epiphenomena , ironically and paradoxically enough .

Better still, some materialists would even say that subjective experiences ...are just useful illusory evolutionary simulations computed by the physical brain , simulations that feel real though lol, like Graziano argued  .

I don't agree with that part of Carter's book of course regarding the biological evolution and the mind ....at least .I have just posted that to retell you about those false materialist theories of mind .

Carter is a substance dualist , so he doesn't believe in that materialistic non-sense regarding the alleged evolutionary biological origin of consciousness, needless to add .

I don't see either how the biological evolution can ever account for consciousness and the mind .It absolutely can't ,since consciousness is neither reducible to biology nor can it be an emergent property of the so-called evolutionary complexity of the physical brain ,no way .

Nevertheless, body and mind do have mutual interactions with each other indeed .

Quote
Quote
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.

Yep.


How can materialist Darwin account for the causal efficacy of the mind then ?

How can the biological evolution give rise to the mind and consciousness ?

Bullocks lol

Quote
Quote
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

That summary is  just wrong. Darwin did discuss behavior as a trait that could be selected for, in animals and in man, and there was no argument from physics that conflicted with it. All that was missing from his theory at the time was the mechanism of DNA, but good data is still good data, even without all the pieces of the puzzle.


Well, you should have read the previous quote more carefully :
Classical physics were /are deterministic and causally closed ,so it made/ makes no room whatsoever for any causal efficacy of the mind .So, Darwin's viewpoint concerning  the causal efficacy of the mind  did conflict with the classical physics of his time as well as with his deterministic materialism that was built upon classical physics , ironically and paradoxically enough .QM did replace the  classical deterministic universe with the probabilistic one that allowed /allows for a non-mechanical causation of the mind by eliminating the causal closure of the physical thus .

Happy new year , lady .Happy new year to all of you , guys .Best wishes.
« Last Edit: 30/12/2014 21:37:17 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

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

You do realize that the above is inconsistent with all materialist theories of mind , do you ? that consider the mind as just a useless side effect or a by -product of evolution ,an epiphenomena , ironically and paradoxically enough .
I don't think consciousness is an epiphenomena, and I don't know of any neuroscientists who do, as I've explained several times before in response to Carter's straw man argument.

Quote
Better still, some materialists would even say that subjective experiences ...are just useful illusory evolutionary simulations computed by the physical brain , simulations that feel real though lol, like Graziano argued  .

I'm not even sure how to make sense of that statement. If they are useful, then they aren't epiphenomena. Simulations in what way? Our perceptions and qualia correspond with reality well enough for us to navigate the world, but do they provide us with all of the information - can we see in the ultra violet range or echolocate like bats or sense magnetic fields like migrating birds? No, so perhaps in that sense our perception is a limited  "simulation" of reality. So?

Quote
I don't agree with that part of Carter's book of course regarding the biological evolution and the mind ....at least .I have just posted that to retell you about those false materialist theories of mind .

Carter is a substance dualist , so he doesn't believe in that materialistic non-sense regarding the alleged evolutionary biological origin of consciousness, needless to add .


Then it's strange that he would do a 180 and attempt to use evolution in his argument. Perhaps he thought no one would notice.
Quote
I don't see either how the biological evolution can ever account for consciousness and the mind .It absolutely can't ,since consciousness is neither reducible to biology nor can it be an emergent property of the so-called evolutionary complexity of the physical brain ,no way .

How can materialist Darwin account for the causal efficacy of the mind then ?
Because animals that behaved in certain ways survived while others didn't.


Quote
Well, you should have read the previous quote more carefully :
Classical physics were /are deterministic and causally closed ,so it made/ makes no room whatsoever for any causal efficacy of the mind .So, Darwin's viewpoint concerning  the causal efficacy of the mind  did conflict with the classical physics of his time as well as with his deterministic materialism that was built upon classical physics , ironically and paradoxically enough .QM did replace the  classical deterministic universe with the probabilistic one that allowed /allows for a non-mechanical causation of the mind by eliminating the causal closure of the physical thus .
It makes no room for the causal efficacy of the mind if you assume the mind and the brain are separate entities, and behavior, including the ability to learn from experience, is not in any way a genetic trait. It's not a problem for either biologists or physicists -interaction between the immaterial and the brain is just a problem for mystics and substance dualists - another weakness of that theory.
Quote
Happy new year , lady .Happy new year to all of you , guys .Best wishes.
Happy New Year to you as well.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
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 .
Just let me know when they come up with something interesting or useful and I'll notice and acknowledge it.

Quote
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 .
I'm just quoting your own words Don. Care to explain how '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' differs from magic ?

Quote
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  .
Your the only one whining constantly about materialism. As I said before, I couldn't care less about your personal stereotype of materialism; I'm not a subscriber. Respond to the posts, not some straw man philosophical stereotype.

Quote
You're a real jerk ,you know that ? A depressing dogmatic fool who thinks  himself to be wise or funny .
Lol! I don't need to be funny while you're around  [:o)]

You spend a whole post (and a past history of insults) on ad-hominems, then call me a jerk for one trivial quip. Look to the log in your own eye pal. You may like to feel superior by being a jerk yourself, but you cry when some one does it back to you. Maybe if you learned to be a little more pleasant and addressed the argument rather than a straw man stereotype of the arguer, you wouldn't get treated like a jerk yourself.

But cheer up - you've got a whole new year to find something useful from 'Post Materialistic Science', and to find a plausible and credible rebuttal of the Yu & Nikolic paper ('Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness'). If your model of the world is scientific, testable, and right, you shouldn't have any difficulty at all (snicker).

« Last Edit: 31/12/2014 01:43:52 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447635#msg447635 date=1419990079]
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 .
Just let me know when they come up with something interesting or useful and I'll notice and acknowledge it.

They don't need or require neither your confirmation, approval nor your recognition or validation ,silly .

Who the hell do you think you are anyway ?

You wouldn't notice,see,  or acknowledge counter-evidence against materialism even if it would hit you in the eye ,so , why should i bother then ...Pfft

+ The works of non-materialist scientists are no state secret , they are public for everybody to check out .

Quote
Quote
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 .
I'm just quoting your own words Don. Care to explain how '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' differs from magic ?

Don't be stupid ,you silly materialist dogmatic magician .Stop projecting .Even Alastair Rae who's a proponent of MW interpretation of QM did acknowledge the fact that if there was a separate soul as Popper and Eccles argued for in their co-authored "The self and its brain " ,then it has  to have causal effects on matter without , by definition, obeying any laws of physics .

Alastair even added and rightly so : if that was the case , if there was a separate soul , that would solve the interpretation problem in QM somehow .

Think about it : it's not that difficult : materialism is false , since it mainly can never intrinsically account for consciousness ,and hence the latter cannot be a material process .

A separate soul has to have non-mechanical and non-local causal effects on matter , including at the quantum level ,without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics .

(By the way Searle was right in saying that that was substance dualism .We should in fact speak of process dualism , since the mind and matter are both totally different in kind  from each other processes , no substances ) .

QM has eliminated the classical causal closure of the physical , by replacing the classical deterministic universe by the probabilistic one , and hence has been allowing , so to speak, the non-mechanical and non-local causation of the mind in relation to matter : read the above displayed excerpt from a certain Carter's book on the subject to which Cheryl   here above has been reacting  .Do the same instead of trolling this stupid way then .

Quote
Quote
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  .
Your the only one whining constantly about materialism. As I said before, I couldn't care less about your personal stereotype of materialism; I'm not a subscriber. Respond to the posts, not some straw man philosophical stereotype.

Well, materialism has been confused and equated with science for relatively so long now , without question, and counting ,so how do you expect me not to react to your materialistic dogmatic beliefs ,the ones you have been taking for granted as science = most of your alleged arguments or alleged evidence are just materialistic beliefs ,so.

It all comes down to the mind -body problem, including at the level of the interpretation of QM ,and since science has been materialist all that time and counting ,then most of what has been taken for granted as science must be questioned and identified as such , as just materialistic beliefs , no science,including the MW interpretation of QM that's based on the materialistic false belief assumption that consciousness is just a material process , including all materialist theories of mind ... .

Even the so-called standard model of QFT has to be absolutely and certainly ,and without a shadow of a doubt , fundamentally false and approximately correct , since it can absolutely neither account for consciousness nor for its non-mechanical and non-local causal effects on matter ...as  classical physics were /are and for the same reason .

Quote
Quote
You're a real jerk ,you know that ? A depressing dogmatic fool who thinks  himself to be wise or funny .
Lol! I don't need to be funny while you're around  [:o)]

You spend a whole post (and a past history of insults) on ad-hominems, then call me a jerk for one trivial quip. Look to the log in your own eye pal. You may like to feel superior by being a jerk yourself, but you cry when some one does it back to you. Maybe if you learned to be a little more pleasant and addressed the argument rather than a straw man stereotype of the arguer, you wouldn't get treated like a jerk yourself.

I just can't stand dogmatic materialists such as yourself , let alone your irritating and belittling comments .I can't stand any form of dogmatism in fact , not even in myself .

Don't throw stones at people while living in a house that's made of glass .

Why do you continue reacting to my posts then ? Why do you continue confirming my views about you , over and over again ?

Why don't you get a real life ? Are you that masochistic  ?

As a famous poet said :

"The heart of a diamond can be cut by the leaf of a flower ,
A soft and gentle word has no effect on a stupid man ."

You can expand the meaning of "stupid " in the above lines as to encompass fool , dogmatic , arrogant , uninteresting,sterile  ...

Quote
But cheer up - you've got a whole new year to find something useful from 'Post Materialistic Science', and to find a plausible and credible rebuttal of the Yu & Nikolic paper ('Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness'). If your model of the world is scientific, testable, and right, you shouldn't have any difficulty at all (snicker).

That experiment is already almost 5 years old and represents no conclusive evidence for its bombastic claims ( Bell's theorem and its related experiments made a stronger case than that ,for example ) ,and there were many other double slit experiments,to mention just that ,  that were conducted after 2010 that proved the contrary of that bombastic experiment ,not to mention that the mystery of the double slit experiment does remain unresolved up to this sec and counting  .

A Nobel prize and beyond are waiting for the one(s) who would solve the latter .

As for the rest , try to cure yourself from your unscientific and irrational illogical dogmatic certainty .Beware of the next unexpected unpredicted undetected unpredictable undetectable unknown , for the next black swans that might be sending the already refuted outdated and superseded materialism to the garbage of history where it belongs ,and for good this time lol , for the benefit and progress of both science and humankind .

Happy new year anyway ,dlorde.Best wishes . Let's hope this new year will be curing you from your tragic -hilarious absurd paradoxical ridiculous and unscientific dogmatic materialistic certainty or lethal disease  .Otherwise , some black swans will do the job for you  whether you would like it or not ,soon enough, if that lethal disease of yours doesn't kill you before the former  happens . Amen .
« Last Edit: 31/12/2014 18:16:53 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg447630#msg447630 date=1419979970]

You do realize that the above is inconsistent with all materialist theories of mind , do you ? that consider the mind as just a useless side effect or a by -product of evolution ,an epiphenomena , ironically and paradoxically enough .
I don't think consciousness is an epiphenomena, and I don't know of any neuroscientists who do, as I've explained several times before in response to Carter's straw man argument.

Then you should have read that above displayed excerpt of Carter more carefully that was all about the materialist theories of mind :

They do either :

1-Deny the existence of consciousness and the mind as such : just illusions .

2- Consider them to be  just useless side effects or by-products of evolution : epiphenomena thus .

3- Or reduce them to just brain activity,without any causal effects on matter of course  : identity theory that's just a materialistic act of faith too , no scientific theory .

If any materialist neuroscientist would claim that the mind has causal effects on matter , the brain or body , he/she would be contradicting his/her own materialism ,big time .

In other words :

Materialism that's just the false belief assumption that all is matter or that all that matters is matter cannot but either deny the very existence of the mind and consciousness as such ( consider them to be  just illusions ,or  just  some sort of elaborate simulations computed by the so-called evolutionary complexity of the  physical brain : useful illusory evolutionary simulations that feel real though as Graziano argued for ...) ,cannot but consider them to be just useless epiphenomena ,  or cannot but equate the mind and consciousness with brain activity without any causal effects on matter brain or body , logically .

Our so-called illusory perception of free will or our so-called illusory perception of our mindful volitional causal effects on matter brain and body ...are just the work of the pre-frontal cortex ,for example,or that of the so-called higher centers of the brain ...blablabla... ...= we are just automatons , just machines or robots made out of meat lol , just hardware run by software =bullshit .

Quote
Quote
Better still, some materialists would even say that subjective experiences ...are just useful illusory evolutionary simulations computed by the physical brain , simulations that feel real though lol, like Graziano argued  .

I'm not even sure how to make sense of that statement. If they are useful, then they aren't epiphenomena. Simulations in what way? Our perceptions and qualia correspond with reality well enough for us to navigate the world, but do they provide us with all of the information - can we see in the ultra violet range or echolocate like bats or sense magnetic fields like migrating birds? No, so perhaps in that sense our perception is a limited  "simulation" of reality. So?


Useful in the sense that they help us survive ,like some sort of survival  placebo  lol

Our perception is limited indeed, not to mention our selective perception or attention,  and we do perceive and see things in nature as well that do not exist as such like colors , optical illusions ,sun set , flat earth lol , still earth ....but that's not all what materialists mean by asserting that the mind and consciousness are just illusions or useful illusory evolutionary brain simulations  that feel real ,for example .

They just mean ,as the above implies, that our physical brains create that alleged illusory  feeling of being conscious or aware , that alleged illusory aware conscious perception or the alleged illusory subjective experiences that feel real : our brains allegedly fool us into believing that we are conscious aware beings lol for survival "purposes " : the brain fooling itself thus lol = the brain creating an illusion for and by itself, kidding itself and by itself lol  .

There is indeed what can be called the  self-deceit intrinsic capacity of the human mind  , but that limited capacity gets extended by materialists as to encompass the whole mind and consciousness as such = as a whole self-deceit = illusions = the brain creating the illusion of mind to fool the mind lol ....crazy stuff that belongs more in a mad house than in science .

All materialist theories of mind thus are so full of intrinsic inconsistencies paradoxes and absurdities that they cannot but deliver such non-sense = desperate pathetic materialistic attempts to rescue materialism and its classical determinism : materialists are stuck within their materialistic prison ,unless they try to break out from it ,since materialism is just a false prison , a false belief that shapes the consciousnesses , minds and behaviors of materialists thus .

I am just telling you about the logical consequences of materialism regarding the mind -body problem : see above thus .

Quote
Quote
I don't agree with that part of Carter's book of course regarding the biological evolution and the mind ....at least .I have just posted that to retell you about those false materialist theories of mind .

Carter is a substance dualist , so he doesn't believe in that materialistic non-sense regarding the alleged evolutionary biological origin of consciousness, needless to add .


Then it's strange that he would do a 180 and attempt to use evolution in his argument. Perhaps he thought no one would notice.


No , he just did that to show how flawed materialism is , by refuting materialism even from within via the latter's inconsistencies at the level of Darwinism and more ....

Materialist Darwin , for example, assumed that the mind had causal effects on matter , while both the classical physics of his time as well as his own materialism that was built upon the former did not only conflict with the causal efficacy of the mind, but they also ruled it  out , ironically and paradoxically enough , exactly like the materialist standard model of QFT does  .

Carter used thus the inherent or intrinsic incoherence or inconsistencies of materialism to refute the latter while providing stronger evidence for that from what QM has been saying .

QM that superseded the classical deterministic mechanical physics upon which materialism was built .

That's why materialists do come up with other alternate physical theories to go around the problem like that so-called standard model of quantum field theory that has to be most certainly fundamentally false and approximately correct too, in its turn, as classical physics was/is by the way , since both can absolutely not account for either consciousness nor for its causal efficacy .

That's why materialists do come up also with their own interpretations of QM to avoid the problem like the MW interpretation of QM that's based on the materialistic intrinsic false belief assumption that consciousness is just a material process and hence it has to become  entangled with quantum systems and measuring devices whenever "observing " them and thus join the superposition states in its turn ....blablabla ...so the universe splits into multiverses ...  lol Crazy stuff.

Quote
Quote
I don't see either how the biological evolution can ever account for consciousness and the mind .It absolutely can't ,since consciousness is neither reducible to biology nor can it be an emergent property of the so-called evolutionary complexity of the physical brain ,no way .

How can materialist Darwin account for the causal efficacy of the mind then ?
Because animals that behaved in certain ways survived while others didn't.


Darwin was right in his assertions on the subject regarding the causal efficacy of the mind at least , but as a materialist ,there is no way he can account for that ,since both classical physics of his time as well as his own materialism did /do rule out any causal efficacy of the mind, by definition  .

Quote
Quote
Well, you should have read the previous quote more carefully :
Classical physics were /are deterministic and causally closed ,so it made/ makes no room whatsoever for any causal efficacy of the mind .So, Darwin's viewpoint concerning  the causal efficacy of the mind  did conflict with the classical physics of his time as well as with his deterministic materialism that was built upon classical physics , ironically and paradoxically enough .QM did replace the  classical deterministic universe with the probabilistic one that allowed /allows for a non-mechanical causation of the mind by eliminating the causal closure of the physical thus .
It makes no room for the causal efficacy of the mind if you assume the mind and the brain are separate entities, and behavior, including the ability to learn from experience, is not in any way a genetic trait. It's not a problem for either biologists or physicists -interaction between the immaterial and the brain is just a problem for mystics and substance dualists - another weakness of that theory.

You're the one who's been assuming that the false materialistic belief assumption that consciousness is just a material process ,has been an "empirical fact " . The materialistic identity or production theory are just acts of faith , no scientific theories thus .They are untestable thus .

Well, once again, materialism is false , simply because it can mainly never intrinsically account for consciousness , and hence the latter cannot be a material process .

Once again : see the above mentioned materialist theories of mind : they cannot all but rule out any causal effects of the mind on matter , each one of them its own way .

1- How can the mind as an alleged illusion have any causal effects on matter ?

2- How can the mind as an epiphenomena do that ? : a paradox .The very definition of epiphenomena is that it does nothing , simply put thus .

3 - Regarding the materialistic identity theory : how can the mind that's just brain activity have any causal effects on the latter , for example ? Oh , well, the pre-frontal cortex does that ,some materialists say : the activity of the brain has causal effects on the activity of the brain lol and body .

Consciousness has to be non-physical , has to be non-local ( many indirect empirical evidence proved that fact as such ) and has to have , by definition, a non-mechanical causation in relation to matter ,has to interact mutually with matter brain and body : QM has replaced the deterministic causally closed universe with the probabilistic one by eliminating the causal closure of the physical ...so , there is no interaction problem .Read that excerpt more carefully then .

Quote
Quote
Happy new year , lady .Happy new year to all of you , guys .Best wishes.
Happy New Year to you as well.

Likewise , lady .Best wishes . Have fun , Life is 2 short , enjoy it .
« Last Edit: 31/12/2014 19:58:12 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Email Reply From Fred Kuttner co-author of "Quantum enigma , Physics encounters consciousness " book  :

Date : December 29th , 2014 .

I haven't checked my emails for 2 days now up until a while ago ,and then, to my surprise and great delight ,  i saw the reply of Kuttner via email that was sitting there for 2 days now .He was indeed kind enough as to answer an email from a total stranger on the subject .Cool scientist indeed .I am grateful for and honored by that .

Anyway , i will copy and paste the exact words of Kuttner as i have received them via email thus , word for word : as follows :

Quote : "Dear ....,

I looked at the article you referenced.  I don't have the time to totally examine the article in the detail it would take to decide whether the proposed experiment could or could not disprove the hypothesis that consciousness is needed to collapse wavefunctions.  It is clear that despite the author's claim, their argument has nothing to say about whether quantum mechanics is necessarily involved in the functioning of the mind.

Like most physicists, unfortunately, the authors seem to believe that we make the claim that consciousness is needed to collapse wavefunctions.  We are actually agnostic about whether or not that is true.  The claim that we do make is that since by your choice of experiment you can determine whether the object in our 2-box experiment was in one box or both, the only possibilities we see are 1) Your choice of experiment determined the prior reality of the state of the object, backwards in time, or 2) The world exhibits a conspiratorial determinism such that you had no choice of which experiment to choose and that your choice was correlated with the state of the object, or 3) Quantum mechanics, our best theory of the physical world, is only a calculational tool that says nothing about reality.  You pick.

Cheers,
Fred
" End quote .

P.S.: I have just replied to the above by requesting from him to notify  me by email regarding his further comments on that above mentioned 2-slit experiment whenever he would have time for that + I did ask him some other relevant questions on the subject ....
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Who the hell do you think you are anyway ?

You wouldn't notice,see,  or acknowledge counter-evidence against materialism even if it would hit you in the eye ,so , why should i bother then ...Pfft
...
Don't be stupid ,you silly materialist dogmatic magician ...
...
Do the same instead of trolling this stupid way then .
...
Why don't you get a real life ? Are you that masochistic  ?
...
You can expand the meaning of "stupid " in the above lines as to encompass fool , dogmatic , arrogant , uninteresting,sterile  ...
...
Happy new year anyway ,dlorde.Best wishes .

Pretty much speaks for itself  ::)
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Who the hell do you think you are anyway ?

You wouldn't notice,see,  or acknowledge counter-evidence against materialism even if it would hit you in the eye ,so , why should i bother then ...Pfft
...
Don't be stupid ,you silly materialist dogmatic magician ...
...
Do the same instead of trolling this stupid way then .
...
Why don't you get a real life ? Are you that masochistic  ?
...
You can expand the meaning of "stupid " in the above lines as to encompass fool , dogmatic , arrogant , uninteresting,sterile  ...
...
Happy new year anyway ,dlorde.Best wishes .

Pretty much speaks for itself  ::)
Yes......................a disgusting display of insulting arrogance! There's really no excuse for such behavior.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
The claim that we do make is that since by your choice of experiment you can determine whether the object in our 2-box experiment was in one box or both,


In other words, mass and charge are not conserved, if I choose not to conserve them. So I can take one atom of gold, and by choice alone, make another, ad infinitum. The implications are remarkable, if not absurd.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Yes......................a disgusting display of insulting arrogance! There's really no excuse for such behavior.
He's done this sort of thing before when it's been pointed out he's said something silly or contradicted himself. What's disturbing is the weird contrast of a barrage of insults, followed by cheerful best wishes for the new year. Something not quite right about that...
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Yes......................a disgusting display of insulting arrogance! There's really no excuse for such behavior.

 What's disturbing is the weird contrast of a barrage of insults, followed by cheerful best wishes for the new year. Something not quite right about that...
Really disingenuous and frankly quite dishonest.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Quote
The claim that we do make is that since by your choice of experiment you can determine whether the object in our 2-box experiment was in one box or both,


In other words, mass and charge are not conserved, if I choose not to conserve them. So I can take one atom of gold, and by choice alone, make another, ad infinitum. The implications are remarkable, if not absurd.
Presumably they're talking about a superposition effect, otherwise, as you say, it sounds absurd...
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
The claim that we do make is that since by your choice of experiment you can determine whether the object in our 2-box experiment was in one box or both,


In other words, mass and charge are not conserved, if I choose not to conserve them. So I can take one atom of gold, and by choice alone, make another, ad infinitum. The implications are remarkable, if not absurd.

He's just talking about the choices physicists make regarding whether to conduct an interference 2-slit experiment or otherwise : you either decide to determine via your choice of experiment whether to get an interference pattern or otherwise  .

P.S.: He's at least agnostic about whether consciousness can or cannot  collapse the wave function .

Alasatair Rae in his "Quantum physics , illusion or reality ? " book was even clearer when he talked about the interpretation problem in QM while discussing the co-authored book of Popper and Eccles that argued for a separate soul :
Alastair who's a proponent of MW interpretation of QM said that if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics ,and that would solve the interpretation problem in QM .

Alastair does not agree with that nature of consciousness , since he prefers to believe in the MW interpretation of QM that's based on the materialistic false belief assumption that consciousness is just a material process , ironically and paradoxically enough .

Happy new year ,Alan .Best wishes.

« Last Edit: 01/01/2015 17:34:44 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Who the hell do you think you are anyway ?

You wouldn't notice,see,  or acknowledge counter-evidence against materialism even if it would hit you in the eye ,so , why should i bother then ...Pfft
...
Don't be stupid ,you silly materialist dogmatic magician ...
...
Do the same instead of trolling this stupid way then .
...
Why don't you get a real life ? Are you that masochistic  ?
...
You can expand the meaning of "stupid " in the above lines as to encompass fool , dogmatic , arrogant , uninteresting,sterile  ...
...
Happy new year anyway ,dlorde.Best wishes .

Pretty much speaks for itself  ::)
Yes......................a disgusting display of insulting arrogance! There's really no excuse for such behavior.

You can't be a fair judge of  that ,no way .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Let's start the new year with a clean sheet or slate .
Try to change your dogmatic , irritating , belittling and degrading behavior and then i will change mine as well .

Deal ?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
He's just talking about the choices physicists make regarding whether to conduct an interference 2-slit experiment or otherwise : you either decide to determine via your choice of experiment whether to get an interference pattern or otherwise  .

That's not what he said. And although what he said was obvious nonsense, he also didn't say that a single particle would produce an interference pattern, which would be even more nonsensical.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Mind-to-mind thought talking possible by 2030, scientist says:

By Dick Pelletier
Ethical Technology

Posted: Dec 31, 2014

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pelletier20141231


"Quantum Consciousness " :

Stuart Hameroff MD, 2015

Quote : " ....My research involves a theory of consciousness which can bridge these two approaches, a theory developed over the past 20 years with eminent British physicist Sir Roger Penrose. Called ‘orchestrated objective reduction’ (‘Orch OR’), it suggests consciousness arises from quantum vibrations in protein polymers called microtubules inside the brain’s neurons, vibrations which interfere, ‘collapse’ and resonate across scale, control neuronal firings, generate consciousness, and connect ultimately to ‘deeper order’ ripples in spacetime geometry. Consciousness is more like music than computation...." End quote

http://www.hameroff.com/content/overview

Consciousness arising from brain activity lol : Cheryl   would like that non-sense .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
He's just talking about the choices physicists make regarding whether to conduct an interference 2-slit experiment or otherwise : you either decide to determine via your choice of experiment whether to get an interference pattern or otherwise  .

That's not what he said. And although what he said was obvious nonsense, he also didn't say that a single particle would produce an interference pattern, which would be even more nonsensical.

Would you then care to elaborate on these assertions of yours , please ? Thanks .

You either choose to conduct a 2-slit interference experiment without a detector thus  or otherwise= a 2-slit experiment with a detector at the top of the 2-slits thus  .Isn't that true ? It is .

Jim Al Khalili talks about that here below in this short video of his on the subject :

« Last Edit: 01/01/2015 18:19:46 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
dlorde :

Let's start the new year with a clean sheet or slate .
Try to change your dogmatic , irritating , belittling and degrading behavior and then i will change mine as well .

Deal ?
It's entirely up to you, Don. I am always civil and polite to people who are civil and polite to me. 

However, I can't stop you considering my opinions to be dogmatic, nor can I stop you from finding reasoned argument and having your errors pointed out to be irritating, belittling or degrading; that's just a matter of emotional maturity.
« Last Edit: 01/01/2015 19:34:12 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447737#msg447737 date=1420140489]
dlorde :

Let's start the new year with a clean sheet or slate .
Try to change your dogmatic , irritating , belittling and degrading behavior and then i will change mine as well .

Deal ?
It's entirely up to you, Don. I am always civil and polite to people who are civil and polite to me. 

It's always the fault of other people , never ours , right ?
A little self-reflection or self-introspection won't hurt anybody , to the contrary .

Quote
However, I can't stop you considering my opinions to be dogmatic, nor can I stop you from finding reasoned argument and having your errors pointed out to be irritating, belittling or degrading; that's just a matter of emotional maturity.

Here you go again , emotional maturity , of course : you're not guilty of the above , silly me : i have just imagined all that , thanks to my emotional immaturity.



 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
"[The two-slit experiment] contains the only
mystery. We cannot make the mystery go away by
“explaining” how it works . . . In telling you how
it works we will have told you about the basic
peculiarities of all quantum mechanics."
— Richard Feynman
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
It's always the fault of other people , never ours , right ?
A little self-reflection or self-introspection won't hurt anybody , to the contrary .
Quite. Nobody's perfect, but anyone reading the thread can make up their own mind.

Quote
Here you go again , emotional maturity , of course : you're not guilty of the above , silly me : i have just imagined all that , thanks to my emotional immaturity.
::) 

The basic rule for civil and polite debate or discussion is that you may attack the argument but not the arguer. If you attack the arguer, don't be surprised if they bite back.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

You either choose to conduct a 2-slit interference experiment without a detector thus  or otherwise= a 2-slit experiment with a detector at the top of the 2-slits thus  .Isn't that true ? It is .


No detector = no experiment.
 

Offline cheryl j

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


Alasatair Rae in his "Quantum physics , illusion or reality ? " book was even clearer when he talked about the interpretation problem in QM while discussing the co-authored book of Popper and Eccles that argued for a separate soul :
Alastair who's a proponent of MW interpretation of QM said that if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics ,and that would solve the interpretation problem in QM .



If there are souls that can causally affect matter without obeying any of the laws of the universe, but all they ever bother to do is f*ck with certain physics experiments in a consistent and predictable fashion, souls have an odd sense of humor.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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