The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 187735 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

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

You have to read Carter's excerpts here above before attempting to refute them .I know they take time to read . I know that's not the way to conduct a debate .But , since i will be absent from this forum in the next days , and since i did not want to distort Carter's arguments , i had no choice but to display those relevant excerpts of his.
You will have time enough to read those excerpts , i hope , the same goes for me , and then ,we can discuss them through our own words ,afterwards , when i will come back to this forum after some days  .
My apologies for the inconvenience . I would appreciate it very much ,if you would then, afterwards , pinpoint to me where Carter and all those eminent scientists on whose work he based his consclusions were  wrong.Thanks, appreciate indeed .


Furthermore : You said earlier as a reply to my following quote :

Quote
      Who's insane enough as to believe in that materialist non-sense ?

You said the following thus :

Quote
No-one, I would hope. It's a complete misrepresentation. If that's really what you think the materialist position is, it's no wonder you have difficulty with it. Personally, I think it's a deliberate misrepresentation intended to cover a depressing lack of reasoned argument against the real position.

Well , here is what Carter had to say about just that :

   
MATERIALIST THEORIES OF MIND :

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 onesided 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.

 

« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 20:39:27 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
"Implications For Physics and Consciousness " : Schmidt's Experiments and more :




http://skepdic.com/pear.html

Attempts to replicate Schmidt's experiments do not appear to have been very successful. But I'm grateful that Don has provided at least one bone to chew on instead of mere "overwhelming evidence."

The effects, if not anomalies, or not connected to a lack of true randomness in the random generators, seem so minimal that I fail to see how it underlies or supports the entire structure of consciousness itself as a reliable and consistent mechanism. They are describing a force that only influences matter effectively - rarely, if at all, and yet is supposed to be (for Don's purposes, anyway) the vehicle through which consciousness communicates its objectives to the brain for every mental activity.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 20:38:56 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Does the following famous and simple double slit experiment not show clearly that consciousness does collapse the wave function ? (Dr.Quantum amusing version ) ,without any tranfer of energy whatsoever ? :


Furthermore , I think that when Caroll says that the standard model of quantum field theory  that allegedly explains  how  the whole every-day -scale world works rules out any existence of psi-phenomena , NDE ....,since all major or significant natural laws  or forces were already discovered ,and even if physicists would discover in the future some too- insignificant -forces -to -be -detected / detectable- today , they would turn out to be irrelevant .
When caroll said that through  his wonderful and impressive lecture ,he maybe did not remember  the fact that classical physicists thought almost the same about classical Newtonian physics untill Max Planck showed up in the picture to topple classical Newtonian physics through his work that paved the way for quantum theory .

I suspect thus that the same might happen to that standard model of quantum field theory .

P.S.: I will be absent from this forum during a few days , so, i will be not active in this forum, just to give you and myself time enough to read all those excerpts of Carter , and then, afterwards , we can discuss them in an informed manner .

I know it takes time to read them , as i also know that posting lengthy excerpts from books is not the proper way to conduct constructive debates , but i had no choice but to do that , since i did not want to repeat the same mistake i committed yesterday by distorting Carter's arguments ...

My apologies for the inconvenience .

Thanks a lot for your understanding and cooperation, help ....time , efforts .., appreciate indeed .Best wishes .Cheers .

My apologies for not being able to reply to all your interesting posts here above , guys , since it took me so much time to target Carter's relevant excerpts on the subject and post them here , while fixing their display as well ...

dlorde :

Please , try to take some time to read those Carter's excerpts , and then, we will discuss them , after a few days , if you want to or have time enough for that at least . Thanks.

Since almost all those non-materialist scientists do rely heavily on one particular interpretation of quantum theory where consciousness seems to play a central or key role in physics : The conscious collapse of the wave function (I am well aware of your earlier critiques regarding that issue ) , i would, nevertheless,  appreciate it very much , if you would then pinpoint to me where all those eminent scientists on whose work Carter had based his conclusions , were wrong , since i do not know nearly enough about QM .I wish i did .I have been working on that .

Thanks . Best wishes.Cheers.

« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 20:30:25 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

You will get what you were asking for , don't worry about that .
After a few days , and after finishing with the above , i will be providing you with that overwhelming body of evidence that has been supporting the claims of non-materialist scientists through their own work .

Carter , for example, had even deliverd some serious refutations of all those materialist physiological and psychological explanations of psi-phenomena, NDE , placebo/nocebo effects , so ..

You will also hear about the latter , in due time .

Thanks to all of you , guys , appreciate indeed .

Best wishes to you all and nice weekend as well .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
I was not able to post all the necessary and relevant Carter's excerpts , due to the lack of enough time , and due to the fact that the above posted excerpts were relatively enough anyway .

Thanks, guys .See ya in a few days, hopefully .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Wow :
All of the above just robbed me of nearly 3 hours of my time .Unbelievable.I did not realise that untill now .
It was worth it though .A pleasure .
Thanks.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Oh, wait : why not add the following , after all :


NONMECHANICAL CAUSATION :

In classical physics, all causation is by mechanical means, that is, by contact interactions between neighboring entities or neighboring regions of a field, analogous to the interaction of billiard balls or the motion of a wave in the ocean.
By contrast, quantum physics allows nonmechanical causation.
Thenonlocal, instantaneous influence discussed above is one example.
A second example would be the collapse of the wave function by an act of conscious observation.
 In the orthodox von Neumann interpretation, the actual outcome was assumed to be randomly determined from a range of values, but the experiments of Schmidt and others indicate that consciousness may in fact bias the outcome in a desired direction. This obviously adds another level of nonmechanical causation to conscious observation.
A third example would be the so-called quantum Zeno effect (named after the philosopher Zeno of Elea).
Physicists have found that if they continuously observe an unstable particle in its original state, it will never decay. That is, physicists can “freeze” the decay of the unstable system by measuring it frequently enough in its initial state.
This is what these phenomena led physicist John Wheeler to imagine when he looked to the future:
“There may be no such thing as the ‘glittering central mechanism of the universe’ to be seen behind a glass wall at the end of the trail.
Not machinery but magic may be the better description of the treasure that is waiting.”
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
And the following as well :


THE OBJECTIONS OF DANIEL DENNETT :  ( Mind-body-interaction and energy transfer issues regarding dualism + The alleged causally closed universe issue ) :

Daniel Dennett’s book Consciousness Explained has a chapter titled “Why Dualism is Forlorn,” which begins with the following words: “The idea of mind as distinct from the brain, composed not of ordinary matter but of some other kind of stuff, is dualism, and it is deservedly in disrepute today… .
The prevailing wisdom, variously expressed and argued for is materialism: there is one sort of stuff, namely matter—the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology—and the mind is somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. In short, the mind is the brain.
Dennett then asks, “What, then, is so wrong with dualism? Why is it in such disfavor?” His answer:
A fundamental principle of physics is that any change in the trajectory of a particle is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy … this principle of conservation of energy … is apparently violated by dualism. This confrontation between standard physics and dualism has been endlessly discussed since Descartes’s own day, and is widely regarded as the inescapable flaw in dualism.
Shortly after this, he writes: “This fundamentally antiscientific stance of dualism is, to my mind, it most disqualifying feature, and is the reason why in this book I adopt the apparently dogmatic rule that dualism is to be avoided at all costs.
Commenting on the argument Dennett presents, Stapp writes,
The argument depends on identifying ‘standard physics’ with classical physics.
The argument collapses when one goes over to contemporary physics, in which trajectories of particles are replaced by cloud-like structures, and in which conscious choices can influence physically described activity without violating the conservation laws or any other laws of quantum mechanics.
 Contemporary physical theory allows, and its orthodox von Neumann form entails, an interactive dualism that is fully in accord with all the laws of physics.(emphasis in original)
Rosenblum and Kuttner also reject Dennett’s arguments:
Some theorists deny the possibility of duality by arguing that a signal from a non-material mind could not carry energy and thus could not influence material brain cells. Because of this inability of a mind to supply energy to influence the neurons of the brain, it is claimed that physics demonstrates an inescapable flaw of dualism. However, no energy need be involved in determining to which particular situation a wave function collapses. Thus the determination of which of the physically possible conscious experiences becomes the actual experience is a process that need not involve energy transfer.
Quantum mechanics therefore allows an escape from the supposed fatal flaw of dualism.
 It is a mistake to think that dualism can be ruled out on the basis of physics.
Finally, as Broad pointed out decades ago, at a time when quantum mechanics was still in its infancy, even if all physical-to-physical causation involves transfer of energy, we have no reason to think that such transfer would also be required in mental-to-physical or physical-to-mental causation.
 This, of course, is completely consistent with the point made above by Rosenblum and Kuttner.

Concluding Remarks :

Cognitive scientist Roger Sperry has proposed that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.
A simple example of an emergent property is the fluidity of water, which is nothing like any property of hydrogen and oxygen.
 Another example is the geometrical and optical properties of crystals, properties that the molecules that compose them do not possess. Sperry proposes that consciousness emerges from the configuration of the brain in the way that fluidity emerges from combining hydrogen and oxygen.
This is different from the materialist production theory, according to which the brain produces consciousness the way the liver produces bile. It is a temporal distinction: in the production theory, brain states precede the conscious states they produce, but if conscious states are emergent properties of brain states, then they occur simultaneously with them.
However, as philosopher of mind B. Alan Wallace notes,
A genuine emergent property of the cells of the brain is the brain’s semi-solid consistency, and that is something that objective, physical science can well comprehend … but they do notunderstand how the brain produces any state of consciousness.
 In other words, if mental phenomena are in fact nothing more than emergent properties and functions of the brain, their relation to the brain is fundamentally unlike every other emergent property and function found in
nature. (emphasis in original)
The von Neumann interpretation of reality leaves open the possibility that the mind is not an emergent but rather an elemental property, that is, a basic constituent of the universe as elemental as energy and force fields.
This idea is seriously entertained by physicists such as Herbert, and in its favor we should note that it would resolve the paradox that is raised by the von Neumann interpretation: if consciousness depends on the physical world and if the value of many quantum physical properties depends on consciousness, then how did the physical world ever bring about consciousness in the first place?
 The solution to this puzzle is apparently what Jeans means when he writes, “Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we ought rather hail it as the governor of the realm of matter.
Quantum mechanics can thereby be considered as supporting an interactive dualism similar to that of Descartes.
Cartesian dualism holds that there are two kinds of entirely separate substances: mind and matter.
This theory fell into disrepute among many philosophers because classical physics provided no mechanism by which mind could influence material substance.
The classical idea of substance—self-sufficient, unchanging, with definite location, motion, and extension in space—has been replaced by the idea that physical reality is not made out of any material substance, but rather out of events and possibilities for those events to occur.
These possibilities, or potentials, for events to occur have a wavelike structure and can interfere with each other. They are not substance-like, that is, static or persisting in time. Rather than being concerned with “substances” in the classical sense of the term, modern interactive dualism conceives of two differently described aspects of reality: the psychical and the physical.
Stapp sums up how a modern interactive dualism based on quantum mechanics simplifies the conceptual relationship between the two aspects of reality.
This solution is in line with Descartes’ idea of two “substances,” that can interact in our brains, provided “substance” means merely a carrier of “essences.” The essence of the inhabitants of res cogitans is “felt experience.
 They are thoughts, ideas, and feelings: the realities that hang together to form our streams of conscious experiences. But the essence of the inhabitants of res extensa is not at all that sort of persisting stuff that classical physicists imagined the physical world to be made of … their essential nature is that of “potentialities for the psychophysical events to occur.
 Those events occur at the interface between the psychologically described and physically described aspects of nature. The causal connections between “potentialities for psychologically described events to occur” and the actual occurrence of such events are easier to comprehend and describe than causal connections between the mental and physical features of classical physics.
For, both sides of the quantum duality are conceptually more like “ideas” than like “rocks.”
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Rosenblum and Kuttner sum up the puzzle: (On the famous double slit experiment ) :
Yow, more 'not even wrong' gibberish about quantum mechanics.

You don't provide proper attribution (please in future provide full attribution and/or reference, e.g. author, document title, etc., and/or link to an online source or reference), so it's not possible to verify your quote or its context.

Nevertheless, if it's the same Rosenblum and Kuttner who wrote “Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters
Consciousness”, or even a quote from that work, you'll be interested to know that the errors and misattributions in that book were considered egregious enough to justify a detailed critique in rebuttal by Michael Nauenberg.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Finally , the following then, then i am gone :

Mr. Impressive and Funny Caroll : Beware of the next Max Planck lol :

What many people believe to be our “modern, scientific worldview” is in fact a legacy of classical, Newtonian physics, which has been known to be fundamentally flawed since the early years of the twentieth century.
 As we will see, many of the arguments of the materialists are based on classical physics and the worldview it spawned. However, many physicists now believe that modern physics supports a dualistic model of mind-brain interaction. It is to this issue we now turn.

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

Classical Physics :

Classical physics is a set of theories of nature that originated with the work of Isaac Newton in the seventeenth century, was advanced by many scientists through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and finally culminated in the relativity theories of Albert Einstein, the last great classical physicist.
Building on the earlier work of Galileo and Johannes Kepler, Newton developed a theory of gravity and three simple laws of motion that accurately predicted the motions of the planets as well as that of terrestrial objects here on Earth, such as cannonballs, falling apples, and the tides.
Newton assumed that all physical objects were composed of tiny versions of large visible objects,
which he described as “solid, massy, hard, impenetrable moveable particles.
These tiny objects were assumed to interact by means of direct contact, much like billiard balls. The only exception was the mysterious action at a distance called gravity: Newton’s theory of gravity proposed that every tiny particle in the solar system attracted every other one with a force inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
This deeply troubled Newton, who referred to this action at a distance as an “absurdity”; nevertheless, he formulated his theory of gravity as an equation and simply declined to speculate on how it was mediated, famously writing “hypotheses non fingo” (“I make no hypotheses”).
It was Einstein who finally proposed a mediating agent for gravity: a distortion in space and time caused by the mass of objects, with more massive objects causing greater distortion.
 This contribution made classical physics a local theory: there is no action at a distance. All influence is transmitted locally along a force field, and no influence—including that of gravity—propagates faster than the speed of light.
If, for instance, the sun were to be suddenly destroyed, Earth would drift out of its orbit about eight minutes later.
In classical physics, all interactions between particles are local and occur independent of anyone observing them.
Moreover, the interactions are assumed to be deterministic: that is, the future state of the physical world is completely determined by the state at an earlier time. According to classical physics, the complete history of the physical world was determined for all time at the origin of the universe.
 The universe was now seen as a great machine. God may have created the machine and set it running—according to Newton, the planets were originally hurled by the hand of God—but once started, the solar system was kept going by its own momentum and operated as a self-regulating machine in accordance with inviolable laws.
Classical physics had two ways of dealing with the problem of consciousness and free will.
The first, followed by Newton and René Descartes, was to assume that human consciousness and free will lay outside the domain of physics. Descartes taught that animals were mindless automatons, but humans had a soul and were thus the sole exceptions in an otherwise deterministic, mechanistic universe.
 The second way of dealing with free will, popularized by the eighteenth-century philosophes who were greatly inspired by Newton’s work, was to argue that classical physics was a complete description of the entire world, including human beings, and that free will was therefore an illusion.
The ancient philosophy of materialism was now thought to have a scientific foundation.
Scientists and philosophers now had good reasons to believe that the physical aspects of reality were causally closed: the physical could affect the mental via its affect on the brain, such as the experience of pain after touching a flame, but the mental could not affect the physical. Pulling one’s hand away from the flame was now seen by the materialists as the predetermined response of an automaton.
Thoughts, feelings, and intentions were now seen as causally redundant: it was now argued that consciousness serves no purpose and that our intuitive feeling of free will is only an illusion.
These views became prevalent in the eighteenth century, during what became known as the Enlightenment, which can be thought of as the ideological aftermath of the scientific revolution.
 Its most striking feature was the rejection of dogma and tradition in favor of the rule of reason in human affairs, and it was the precursor of modern secular humanism. Inspired by the dazzling success of the new physics, prominent spokesmen such as Denis Diderot and Voltaire argued for a new worldview based on an uncompromising mechanism and determinism that left no room for any intervention of mind in nature, whether human or divine.
In the eighteenth century, the horrors of the religious wars, the witch hunts, and the Inquisition were still fresh in peoples’ minds, and the new scientific worldview, spread by men such as Diderot and Voltaire, can be seen partly as a reaction against the ecclesiastical domination over thought that the Church held for centuries.
As we have seen, Bruno was burned at the stake for his opinions, and Galileo was persecuted for his but recanted.
Yet Galileo’s insistence that only observation and experimentation, not authority, were the arbiters of truth in science had launched a revolution in thinking.
When Newton’s Principia was published in 1687, it was not suppressed but instead reached a wide audience.
The Newtonian system predicted the orbits of the planets with astonishing accuracy and even reduced comets from portents of disaster to phenomena whose appearance in the sky couldbe predicted like clockwork.
The universe was now viewed as a gigantic clockwork mechanism.
 The so-called modern scientific worldview was thus born and has had enormous impact on philosophy for the last three hundred years.
For a philosopher whose thinking is tied to classical physics, there are two possible ways to understand the inability of the mental to influence the physical.
The first is to consider thoughts, feelings, and intentions as epiphenomena, that is, useless by-products that are somehow produced by the brain, but in turn exert no causal influence on the brain.
The second is to consider the mind as identical to the brain, that is, thoughts and feelings are the same thing as the motion of tiny particles inside the brain.

Quantum Mechanics :

Quantum mechanics was developed early in the twentieth century to explain the behavior of atoms.
The energy of an atom was found to change, not continuously, but by a discrete amount called a quantum. “Quantum mechanics” is the term that includes both the experimental observations and the
quantum theory that explains them.
In the closing years of the nineteenth century, physics was thought to be nearly complete.
All the important discoveries had been made, many thought, and all that was left was to fill in some minor details.
One of these “details” was the hot-body problem concerning the colors of light given off by hot bodies.
Max Planck set about to solve it.
The problem was that classical physics gave the wrong answer: its predictions were wildly inaccurate.
Planck found that when he assumed, as an act of desperation, that energy could only be released from an atom in discrete packets, his formula gave predictions that matched the data perfectly.
 Quantum theory was born.
Classical physics assumed that a charged particle, such as an electron, would lose energy gradually and continuously over time.
Planck assumed that energy could only be radiated in discrete packets.
Each of these packets of energy would have an energy level equal to a tiny number (now called
Planck’s constant) times the frequency of the vibration of the particle. Energy at the atomic level would be measured in quanta (the plural of “quantum”), with one quantum being the lowest energy level possible, above zero.
It was found that an electron would vibrate for a while at a constant energy level without losing energy to radiation.
Then suddenly, unpredictably, randomly, it would jump to a lower energy level and in the process radiate a photon of light (the energy of the photon given by Planck’s constant times its frequency of vibration).
An electron could also gain energy by such “quantum jumps.
 A graph of an electron’s energy level over time was now given by a stepped function, not a smooth curve.
It was later realized that quantum theory should apply to all objects, large and small. However, the reason we don’t see children on swings suddenly change their energy level in quantum jumps is because Planck’s constant is far too small. Quantum effects are just far too tiny for us to notice them at the macroscopic level.
Quantum theory was rapidly developed in the decades to follow, with Einstein, Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie, Erwin Schrödinger, and many others making major contributions. Classical mechanics is now seen as only an excellent approximation for the behavior of objects at the macroscopic level we normally deal with.
 Quantum mechanics can account for everything that classical mechanics can account for, and also for data that classical mechanics neither predicts nor explains. Modern physics is quantum mechanics.
 It also has many practical applications, such as the transistor, the laser, and the florescent light bulb.
 It has been estimated that one-third of our economy depends on devices that operate on quantum mechanical principles. Trying to understand what quantum mechanics means, however, brings us face-to-face with some of the most baffling mysteries ever confronted, and must profoundly change our worldview.
Newtonian physics was based on the metaphysical assumptions of determinism, the assumption that an observer did not affect a system being observed, and localism. But classical physics has been superseded by quantum physics, as classical physics has clearly been shown to be false.
 This implies that the mechanistic worldview based on it must also be false.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Rosenblum and Kuttner sum up the puzzle: (On the famous double slit experiment ) :
Yow, more 'not even wrong' gibberish about quantum mechanics.

You don't provide proper attribution (please in future provide full attribution and/or reference, e.g. author, document title, etc., and/or link to an online source or reference), so it's not possible to verify your quote or its context.

Nevertheless, if it's the same Rosenblum and Kuttner who wrote “Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters
Consciousness”, or even a quote from that work, you'll be interested to know that the errors and misattributions in that book were considered egregious enough to justify a detailed critique in rebuttal by Michael Nauenberg.

Ok, dlorde , taking note of that  .PDF downloaded .Thanks.Cheers.Nice weekend.
Damn , QM is key in all of this ...and more .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl : See what subjectivity and our limited human perception and knowledge  + more can do to us,deceive us .... :

Franz Kafka :

The works of Franz Kafka, especially his two stories Das Urteil (1913; The Judgment) and Die Verwandlung (1915; The Metamorphosis), owe much to Expressionism and are often considered in the context of that movement. But his writing is better understood as an early phase of experimental Modernism. Kafka's central concern, like that of other 20th-century Modernists, is the problematic nature of human subjectivity and the limitations of individual perception and knowledge. His striking narrative technique, first developed in The Judgment, of presenting reality from a limited third-person point of view enables readers to identify with his oppressed and passive protagonists while also recognizing that their view is deeply flawed. Kafka's unfinished novels, especially Der Prozess (1925; The Trial) and Das Schloss (1926; The Castle), explore further aspects of the individual's inescapable entrapment in subjectivity. Like many other Modernists, Kafka also treated problems of authority and power. His characters feel hopelessly subjugated to inexplicable forces associated with patriarchal social structures and an overly mechanized and bureaucratic modern world. The Brief an den Vater (posthumously published, 1960; “Letter to His Father,” bilingual edition, 1966), written in 1919 but never actually delivered to his father, reveals the autobiographical background to the father-son conflict Kafka depicted in many of his stories, a thematic concern he shared with the Expressionists. The grotesque element in Kafka's writing stems from his tendency to take metaphors literally, as when the “spineless” Gregor Samsa, protagonist of The Metamorphosis, wakes up one morning to find he has become an insect, a creature without a spine. Kafka's love of paradoxes and logical puzzles gave rise to a highly symbolic style of writing that makes his works resistant to any single interpretive key.

Encyclopedia Britannica .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Nearly 4 hours of my time are gone by now .Wow.
Sorry for burdening you, guys , with all these excerpts , but , they are worth yout time, believe me .Pleeeaaassseee, try to read them , please Thanks .

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

Ethos, dlorde, Cheryl, alancalverd :

Does the following famous and simple double slit experiment not show clearly that consciousness does collapse the wave function ? (Dr.Quantum amusing version ) ,without any tranfer of energy whatsoever ? :


Furthermore , I think that when Caroll says that the standard model of quantum field theory  that allegedly explains  how  the whole every-day -scale world works rules out any existence of psi-phenomena , NDE ....,since all major or significant natural laws  or forces were already discovered ,and even if physicists would discover in the future some too- insignificant -forces -to -be -detected / detectable- today , they would turn out to be irrelevant .
When caroll said that through  his wonderful and impressive lecture ,he maybe did not remember  the fact that classical physicists thought almost the same about classical Newtonian physics untill Max Planck showed up in the picture to topple classical Newtonian physics through his work that paved the way for quantum theory .

I suspect thus that the same might happen to that standard model of quantum field theory .

P.S.: I will be absent from this forum during a few days , so, i will be not active in this forum, just to give you and myself time enough to read all those excerpts of Carter , and then, afterwards , we can discuss them in an informed manner .

I know it takes time to read them , as i also know that posting lengthy excerpts from books is not the proper way to conduct constructive debates , but i had no choice but to do that , since i did not want to repeat the same mistake i committed yesterday by distorting Carter's arguments ...

My apologies for the inconvenience .

Thanks a lot for your understanding and cooperation, help ....time , efforts .., appreciate indeed .Best wishes .Cheers .

My apologies for not being able to reply to all your interesting posts here above , guys , since it took me so much time to target Carter's relevant excerpts on the subject and post them here , while fixing their display as well ...

dlorde :

Please , try to take some time to read those Carter's excerpts , and then, we will discuss them , after a few days , if you want to or have time enough for that at least . Thanks.

Since almost all those non-materialist scientists do rely heavily on one particular interpretation of quantum theory where consciousness seems to play a central or key role in physics : The conscious collapse of the wave function (I am well aware of your earlier critiques regarding that issue ) , i would, nevertheless,  appreciate it very much , if you would then pinpoint to me where all those eminent scientists on whose work Carter had based his conclusions , were wrong , since i do not know nearly enough about QM .I wish i did .I have been working on that .

Thanks . Best wishes.Cheers.

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
I have been through a 4 hours real marathon  ,wow .
Gone .Done.
Nice weekend and thanks, guys .
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Does the following famous and simple double slit experiment not show clearly that consciousness does collapse the wave function ? (Dr.Quantum amusing version ) ,without any tranfer of energy whatsoever ? :
No. Dr.Quantum's whacky popularisation goes a little awry at the end with his figures of speech - the electron doesn't 'know' anything and isn't 'aware' of anything, and the only thing that matters is the experimental setup - if it's setup to measure which slit the particle goes through, you don't get a diffraction pattern. This will happen whether anyone conscious is observing or not. An automatic system can perform the experiment, record the results on video, store the video for you to watch later, and you'll still see the same effect when you play it. An 'observer' in QM is anything that can interact - a person, a measuring device, or a single particle.

Quote
When caroll said that through  his wonderful and impressive lecture ,he maybe did not remember  the fact that classical physicists thought almost the same about classical Newtonian physics untill Max Planck showed up in the picture to topple classical Newtonian physics through his work that paved the way for quantum theory .

I suspect thus that the same might happen to that standard model of quantum field theory .
I already explained why this is not the case. The 'toppling' of Newtonian physics didn't stop NASA using it to send interplanetary probes on a tour of the solar system, and car crashes still happened because Newton's Laws still hold good at everyday scales and velocities. You have to approach relativistic speeds for the difference to be relevant and significant. The same principle holds for quantum field theory (only more so).

Quote
i would, nevertheless,  appreciate it very much , if you would then pinpoint to me where all those eminent scientists on whose work Carter had based his conclusions , were wrong , since i do not know nearly enough about QM
Lol! very amusing. Tell you what, first you learn enough about QM to understand the arguments you've been using(!), and then read back over the explanations you've been given here, and come back and ask about any parts of the work of those scientists on whom Carter had based his conclusions that you think haven't been covered here.
« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 22:18:41 by dlorde »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: cheryl j
As far as whether entanglement does provide you with some kind cosmic information highway, Carroll doesn't seem to think so, given his discussion of entanglement in these excerpts. If I understand him correctly, entanglement establishes correlations between different possible measurement outcomes - you are not actually manipulating objects at a vast distance faster than the speed of light. Perhaps Dlorde can probably summarize his explanation of entanglement better than I have.
That's correct, Cheryl. Quantum entanglement does not allow you to commute FTL.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
As far as whether entanglement does provide you with some kind cosmic information highway, Carroll doesn't seem to think so, given his discussion of entanglement in these excerpts. If I understand him correctly, entanglement establishes correlations between different possible measurement outcomes - you are not actually manipulating objects at a vast distance faster than the speed of light. Perhaps Dlorde can probably summarize his explanation of entanglement better than I have.

I can pass on someone else's elegant summary - when two particles are entangled for some property, it's as if entanglement sets up two possible pairs of particles to select from (e.g. A-B and B-A) and a subsequent measurement randomly selects which pair you're using - even if the measurement occurs when the particles are far apart.

Everettian 'Many Worlds' interpretations make this explicit and say that when entangled, the pairs actually exist in separate universes, and when you make the measurement, you just discover which universe you happen to be in; i.e. in the other universe there's a you that sees the other measurement result. This interpretation may be weird in its own right, but it doesn't have any of the awkward problems of other interpretations, like wave-function 'collapse' and so-on. It's a long and complicated story...
« Last Edit: 24/10/2014 23:11:24 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

I have to make time for the following here below anyway , then i am gone :

Just try to pinpoint where Carter and all those eminent scientists on whose works he based his conclusions , where they were wrong .
Many eminent physicists talk about the conscious collapse of the wave function : see Carter's excerpts .

What kindda scientific mess or confusion is this then ? Science sounds like some sort of a religion regarding the interpretation of quantum theory at least  : so many scientific "sectes " lol telling different stories about the same theory and more ...not to mention that different theories of the nature of reality pretend to be scientific : the materialist monist one , the dualist one , the idealist one ...+ we have now materialist and non-materialist science ...

P.S.: I understand very well what Carter and those scientists say in his books about quantum theory ...and how it has been opening its wide doors to psi phenomena , NDE and more , and then i see materialist scientists saying the exact opposite things .

What's going on here ? since i am no expert of QM, not even remotely close thus .I wish ...

And how can Caroll say with such unscientific confidence that the standard model of quantum field theory rules out the existence of any psi phenomena ...? since the materialist theory of the nature of reality is certainly false . Thanks .

« Last Edit: 25/10/2014 16:35:29 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Ethos, dlorde, Cheryl, alancalverd :

Does the following famous and simple double slit experiment not show clearly that consciousness does collapse the wave function ? (Dr.Quantum amusing version ) ,without any tranfer of energy whatsoever ? :


No.

But if you want the long answer, note that G I Taylor's single-photon interference pattern (the one that gets everybody excited) used photographic film as the recording medium. To the best of my knowledge, photographic film has nothing that even  our friend Don Quichotte would describe as consciousness, is not imbued with the ability to anticipate that it might be viewed by a conscious being, and, when developed and fixed,  is unaffected retrospectively by the opinion or consciousness of the viewer. 

Thus the double slit experiment proves that the collapse of the wave function, if that is how you want to describe single photon interference, is NOT dependent on consciousness.
« Last Edit: 25/10/2014 16:53:48 by alancalverd »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Rosenblum and Kuttner sum up the puzzle: (On the famous double slit experiment ) :
Yow, more 'not even wrong' gibberish about quantum mechanics.

You don't provide proper attribution (please in future provide full attribution and/or reference, e.g. author, document title, etc., and/or link to an online source or reference), so it's not possible to verify your quote or its context.

Nevertheless, if it's the same Rosenblum and Kuttner who wrote “Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters
Consciousness”, or even a quote from that work, you'll be interested to know that the errors and misattributions in that book were considered egregious enough to justify a detailed critique in rebuttal by Michael Nauenberg.

Yes, indeed : Rosenblum and Kuttner were the ones who wrote " Quantum Enigma..." . I have that book too .I have read some parts of it some time ago .
How come that Michael Nauenberg says in his critique of that book that Wigner was the only eminent physicist who talked about the conscious collapse of the wave function ?
Haven't he heard of big claiber scientists such as Von Neumann and others who did the same and more ?
I will have to complete reading that "rebuttal " book anyway ....

It's the first time though that i hear someone saying that Wigner changed his mind radically about that at the end of his work or life .

There are many scientists physicists , even today , who support the conscious collapse of the wave function , to mention just that ...

To say that science has moved on regarding the work of Von Neumann, Wigner and others can't explain why many phsyicists even today , eminent ones at that , that is , still support the idea of the conscious collapse of the wave function .....still support the idea that QM opens its doors to psi phenomena ...unlike what Caroll and other materialist physicists say on the same subject ...

Who's right here and who's wrong then ?

Since materialist science is full of fairy tales , i can't take all   what materialist science says for granted as science ,as you can understand , i guess .

I should have studied QM indeed : working on that .

What's going on here exactly then ?

To say that only materialist physicists are right about the above sounds like being biased to your own dogmatic materialist tribe whose theory of nature is false anyway .

« Last Edit: 25/10/2014 16:53:39 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg443102#msg443102 date=1414251611]
Ethos, dlorde, Cheryl, alancalverd :

Does the following famous and simple double slit experiment not show clearly that consciousness does collapse the wave function ? (Dr.Quantum amusing version ) ,without any tranfer of energy whatsoever ? :


No.

But if you want the long answer, note that G I Taylor's single-photon interference pattern (the one that gets everybody excited) used photographic film as the recording medium. To the best of my knowledge, photographic film has nothing that even  our friend Don Quichotte would describe as consciousness, is not imbued with the ability to anticipate that it might be viewed by a conscious being, and, when developed and fixed,  is unaffected retrospectively by the opinion or consciousness of the viewer. 

Thus the double slit experiment proves that the collapse of the wave function, if that is how you want to describe single photon interference, is NOT dependent on consciousness.

I was not talking about the double slit experiment using light or photons , but about the other one using electrons . Halloo .
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

I should have studied QM indeed : working on that .


Good luck. It's not particularly difficult, as long as you stick to the  physics and don't read too much pseudoscientific New Age bunkum. Marijuana and LSD are no subsitute for elementary vector algebra.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg443102#msg443102 date=1414251611]
Ethos, dlorde, Cheryl, alancalverd :

Does the following famous and simple double slit experiment not show clearly that consciousness does collapse the wave function ? (Dr.Quantum amusing version ) ,without any tranfer of energy whatsoever ? :


No.

But if you want the long answer, note that G I Taylor's single-photon interference pattern (the one that gets everybody excited) used photographic film as the recording medium. To the best of my knowledge, photographic film has nothing that even  our friend Don Quichotte would describe as consciousness, is not imbued with the ability to anticipate that it might be viewed by a conscious being, and, when developed and fixed,  is unaffected retrospectively by the opinion or consciousness of the viewer. 

Thus the double slit experiment proves that the collapse of the wave function, if that is how you want to describe single photon interference, is NOT dependent on consciousness.

I was not talking about the double slit experiment using light or photons , but about the other one using electrons . Halloo .


Same difference. No conscious being can detect a single-electron interference pattern, nor influence the appearance of a computer readout. Something to do with the irreversibility of time.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

I did mention the fact that Dr.Quantum video was the amusing version of the double slit experiment using electrons ,so, the metaphors used in it are just that ...metaphors ,but, it nevertheless shows that the consciousness of the observer does collapse the wave function .

Even many physicists , materialist ones at that , that is , like the one in the video below , say that the one who would explain what really happens in that double slit experiment with electrons should win the nobel prize : lol : while you were saying that the observer can be consciousness of the obsever , the measuring device ....But those devices are physical or material like electrons are ,so : how can they change the superposition of electrons then ? :


And then ,we have this :




 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

I should have studied QM indeed : working on that .


Good luck. It's not particularly difficult, as long as you stick to the  physics and don't read too much pseudoscientific New Age bunkum. Marijuana and LSD are no subsitute for elementary vector algebra.

Yeah, right : Big caliber eminent scientists such as Von Neumann and most founders of quantum physics + many eminent physicists even today say that consciousness does collapse the wave function, and that QM has been accounting for psi and other phenomena 'anomalies " ...

They must be all deluded or high on some LSD indeed ...Only materialist physicists are right on the subject indeed , silly me .
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums