The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 188120 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Intent , beliefs and expectations, desires , wishes ... do affect the interpretation of scientific data , the design of experiments and their outcome and much more ...Wow ...The observer and the observed are inseparable thus . Think about all the major and unprecedented implications of all that .The subjective cannot be separated from the "objective" , even in science itself .See the subjective science concept in that research ...


Don't start confusing or conflating subjectivity because of limited information, incorrect information, or bias, with indeterminacy. If my husband is at a friend's watching hockey when I think he is out shopping for a present for me, I am just simply wrong. He is not in a superpositioned state until I find out what has occurred, and  I cannot collapse a wave form and cause one or the other to have happened. What you're referring to is just magical thinking.

What i meant is : the observer and the observed are inseparable:  in a nutshell , Cheryl : See that above mentioned scientific research , if you don't wanna read Carter : they are both in line .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

The Intellectual: Enhancement of Basic Science:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/implications.html

The historical evolution of scientific instrumentation that has extended our observational faculties into the domains of increasingly large, or increasingly small, natural phenomena has often forced reformulations of the prevailing representations of reality. Usually these theoretical revisions have been driven by the discovery of empirical anomalies -- unexpected observations that were inconsistent with the established models of that era. The advent of the "Information Age" over the past several decades has brought its own class of such anomalies, typically those associated with meaning, context, and other subjective discriminators.
PEAR's contribution to this expansion of the scientific worldview has been its accumulation of huge bodies of consciousness-correlated empirical evidence that the subjective/objective dichotomy of Cartesian philosophy is no longer entirely viable

More comprehensive accommodation of these anomalies within a functional scientific framework will require the explicit inclusion of consciousness as an active agent in the establishment of physical reality, a generalization of the scientific paradigm demanding more courageous theoretical structures than are employed at present, guided by more extensive empirical data than are now available, acquired via more cooperative interdisciplinary collaborations than are currently practiced. It is our hope that by its proposition of a few possible conceptual models PEAR has established productive precedents for such representation of this formidable, but crucial, topical domain.

The Spiritual: Cultural Implications :

Beyond its revolutionary technological applications and scientific impact, the evidence of an active role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality holds profound implications for our view of ourselves, our relationships to others, and to the cosmos in which we exist. These, in turn, must inevitably impact our values, our priorities, our sense of responsibility, and our style of life. Our ability to acquire, or to generate tangible, measurable information independent of distance or time challenges the foundation of any reductionist brain-based model of consciousness that may be invoked. The lack of notable correlations in the data with standard learning curves or other recognizable cognitive patterns, combined with the repeatable and distinct gender-related differences, suggest that these abilities may stem from a more fundamental source than heretofore suspected.

Certainly, there is little doubt that integration of these changes in our understanding of ourselves can lead to a substantially superior human ethic, wherein the long-estranged siblings of science and spirit, of analysis and aesthetics, of intellect and intuition, and of many other subjective and objective aspects of human experience can be productively reunited.

« Last Edit: 27/10/2014 19:58:18 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/theory.html

Theoretical Models:


I. Theoretical Models:


Nearly three decades of intense experimentation leave little doubt that the anomalous physical phenomena appearing in the PEAR studies are valid, and are significantly correlated with such subjective variables as intention, meaning, resonance, and uncertainty. The stark inconsistencies of these results with established physical and psychological presumptions place extraordinary demands on the development of competent new theoretical models for constructive dialogue with the empirical data. But since the contemporary scientific approach leaves little room for such subjective correlates in its mechanistic representations of reality, it follows that science as we know it either must exclude itself from study of such phenomena, even when they precipitate objectively observable physical effects, or broaden its methodology and conceptual vocabulary to embrace subjective experience in some systematic way.

The primary importance of operator intention and emotional resonance with the task at hand, along with the operator-specific structure evident in the data, the absence of traditional learning patterns, and the lack of explicit space and time dependence clearly predicate that no direct application or minor alteration of existing physical or psychological frameworks will suffice. Rather, nothing less than a generously expanded scientific model of reality, one that allows consciousness a proactive role in the establishment of its experience of the physical world, will be required. The challenges and caveats of such a "Science of the Subjective" are explored in detail in several of our publications.

One such model has been proposed and developed in "On the Quantum Mechanics of Consciousness, With Application to Anomalous Phenomena," under the major premise that the basic processes by which consciousness exchanges information with its environment, orders that information, and interprets it, also enable it to bias probabilistic systems and thereby to avail itself of some control over its reality. This model regards the concepts that underlie all physical models of reality, particularly those of observational quantum mechanics such as the principles of uncertainty, complementarity, exclusion, indistinguishability, and wave mechanical resonance, as fundamental characteristics of consciousness rather than as intrinsic features of an objective physical environment. In this view, the "anomalous" phenomena observed in the PEAR experiments become quite normal expectations of bonded human/machine and human/human systems, and the door is opened for all manner of creative consciousness/environment interactions.

In a complementary approach, a modular conceptual framework has been articulated, wherein direct attention of the conscious mind to observable physical processes is bypassed altogether. Instead, an alternative route is proposed, whereby the inherently probabilistic nature of unconscious mind and intangible physical mechanisms are invoked to achieve anomalous acquisition of information about, or anomalous influence upon, otherwise inaccessible material processes (see "A Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations"). Theoretical requisites for its pursuit include better understanding of the dialogue between the conscious and unconscious aspects of the mind; more pragmatic formulations of the relations between tangible and intangible physical processes; and most importantly, cogent representation of the merging of mental and material dimensions into indistinguishability at their deepest levels.

A rudimentary attempt to represent this latter "subliminal seed space" has been attempted in the format of an array of complex vectors whose components embody the pre-objective and pre-subjective aspects of their interactions (M*: Vector Representation of the Subliminal Seed Regime of M5). Elementary algebraic arguments predict that the degree of anomalous correlation between the emergent conscious experiences and the corresponding tangible events depends only on the alignment of these interacting vectors, i.e., on the correspondence of the ratios of their individual "hard" and "soft" coordinates. This in turn suggests a subconscious alignment strategy based on need, desire, shared purpose, or personal resonance that is consistent with our empirical experience.

In another closely related approach, entitled "Sensors, Filters, and the Source of Reality," we speak of the need to elevate the subjective capacities of consciousness to complementary status with the more objective physical senses, along with recognition of the bi-directional capabilities of both, thereby allowing establishment of resonant channels of communication between the mind and its ultimate Source that can exceed conventional information processing. The key elements in tuning these channels to amplify such information creation are the physiological and psychological filters imposed upon them, some of which can be enhanced or altered by conscious or unconscious attention.

Although the concepts and mechanics presented in this array of specific models may seem somewhat disparate, their larger value may lie in the identification of certain common-denominator issues that arise in one form or another in all of them. Taken together, they can provide a comprehensive conceptual framework for an overarching "science of the subjective" that may one day support a yet more fundamental representation of the full panorama of human experience.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
According to quantum biology, the European robin has a 'sixth sense' in the form of a protein in its eye sensitive to the orientation of the Earth's magnetic field, allowing it to 'see' which way to migrate.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/26/youre-powered-by-quantum-mechanics-biology
Where have you been, Don - this is old news (3 years old). Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden have just got round to writing a book about it, that's all. Jovial Jim got his PhD at, and is Professor of Theroetical Physics at, my old university, Surrey.
« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 10:50:58 by dlorde »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
What do you have to say about this other scientific bombshell ?
<sigh> Even older news, a damp squib. I refer you to my previous answer, post #239.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
What makes this all very interesting is the notion that consciousness (for which we now have something approaching a definition, in another thread) is necessary in order for a subatomic particle to interact with matter. This inverts the entire concept of time because it implies that conscious life must have preceded the evolution of the universe, including conscious life itself. 

It raises further interesting questions.

For instance if the presence of a conscious being is required in order for an electron to excite a phosphor, how does the electron decide where to go in the presence of two or more conscious beings?

What happens to the electron in the absence of an observer? Does it disappear up its own anus, or are charge and mass conserved, as we used to think?

Neutrons approaching Earth from the sun, decay. That involves, in one model, the collapse of a couple of wavefunctions so it seems that the consciousness of beings on earth extends several million miles sunwards. But the sun radiates in all directions, so can we assume that neutrons do not decay en route to Mars or Pluto? If so, how do they know that they have passed beyond Earth's orbit?

And why, if we measure the solar particle spectrum from a space probe, do we find the halflife of neutrons to be constant? Surely if the conscious observer moves relative to the source, he should see the same spectrum of neutrons and decay products because his consciousness is moving with him, but we actually find the spectrum varies exactly as if consciousness had no effect. 

Sorry, Don, but your hypothesis fails the simplest of tests.

PS re: European robins. Although they are all the same species (and quite different from American robins) their migration behaviour varies according to where they live. Scandinavian robins migrate over significant distances, and north-south, as their main food sources are not available in wintertime. In the British Isles, and particularly Ireland, robins are very territorial and don't really migrate in a particular direction but spend more time closer to human habitation or in their warmer feeding grounds in winter. Mediterranean robins hardly move at all. Not sure about "quantum biology" but we have known for at least 50 years that pigeons have magnetic field sensors, and there is some weak evidence that humans do too. All of which points rather strongly to a conventional concept of evolution and adaptation.
« Last Edit: 27/10/2014 23:23:53 by alancalverd »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... Not sure about "quantum biology" but we have known for at least 50 years that pigeons have magnetic field sensors, and there is some weak evidence that humans do too. All of which points rather strongly to a conventional concept of evolution and adaptation.
Yes, quite. The fuss about electron transfer in photosynthesis and the magnetic navigation of robins at the time was due to surprise that any quantum effects persisted long enough in the noisy and warm environment of molecular biology to be used to advantage. Evolution had stumbled across a couple of unexpected optimisations.
« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 10:59:24 by dlorde »
 

Offline cheryl j

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


What happens to the electron in the absence of an observer? Does it disappear up its own anus, or are charge and mass conserved, as we used to think?

Neutrons approaching Earth from the sun, decay. That involves, in one model, the collapse of a couple of wavefunctions so it seems that the consciousness of beings on earth extends several million miles sunwards. But the sun radiates in all directions, so can we assume that neutrons do not decay en route to Mars or Pluto? If so, how do they know that they have passed beyond Earth's orbit?
 

God.

He is that universal consciousness; that is where that argument ultimately leads. God has a lot of wave collapsing to do, which is why evil exists. After all, there's just one of Him, and he appears to have difficulty delegating authority,  and if He has to choose between maintaining the structure of the entire universe, or a few children with leukemia, the occasional psychopathic dictator, or a tsunami, well....
« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 15:39:04 by cheryl j »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
No choice involved. God created the child with leukemia, as well as the ebola virus, earthquakes, and Pol Pot. All the evil and suffering in the world was intentionally created by an omnipotnent, omniscient  being for whom one can only rationally feel utter loathing and contempt. The people who eradicted smallpox will rot in hell for destroying the beauty of His universe.

Or maybe it's quantum mechanics.
 

Offline cheryl j

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

Intent , beliefs and expectations, desires , wishes ... do affect the interpretation of scientific data , the design of experiments and their outcome and much more ...Wow ...The observer and the observed are inseparable thus . Think about all the major and unprecedented implications of all that .The subjective cannot be separated from the "objective" , even in science itself .See the subjective science concept in that research ...


Don't start confusing or conflating subjectivity because of limited information, incorrect information, or bias, with indeterminacy. If my husband is at a friend's watching hockey when I think he is out shopping for a present for me, I am just simply wrong. He is not in a superpositioned state until I find out what has occurred, and  I cannot collapse a wave form and cause one or the other to have happened. What you're referring to is just magical thinking.

What i meant is : the observer and the observed are inseparable:  in a nutshell , Cheryl : See that above mentioned scientific research , if you don't wanna read Carter : they are both in line .

You can dismiss my comment and redirect me to more physics, but it doesn't address the fact that you somehow think consciousness is a force that can change what happens on a macro level, that somehow by wanting or willing things to be different than they are, we can make that happen by non physical means. Or that some non material force underlies consciousness itself, is the primary mechanism for how it all works, when you have no theory or explanation to support it.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: cheryl j
You can dismiss my comment and redirect me to more physics, but it doesn't address the fact that you somehow think consciousness is a force that can change what happens on a macro level, that somehow by wanting or willing things to be different than they are, we can make that happen by non physical means. Or that some non material force underlies consciousness itself, is the primary mechanism for how it all works, when you have no theory or explanation to support it.
Although there is no explanation for it as of yet the PEAR Lab at Princeton did get solid measurable effects when they ran those experiments on consciences. Did you read about them at http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
Quote
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program, which flourished for nearly three decades under the aegis of Princeton University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science, has completed its experimental agenda of studying the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes, and developing complementary theoretical models to enable better understanding of the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality.

There has even been a product which was created as a spin off of this research. See http://www.psyleron.com/
Quote
Discoveries made at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory have shown that consciousness and intention can influence the behavior of quantum electronic devices known as "Random Event Generators" (REGs) or "Random Number Generators." Psyleron was founded by PEAR scientists and associates for the purpose of providing tools that enable ongoing research and personal exploration of mind-matter effects.

One devices is called the Mind Lamp
Quote
The Mind Lamp is a color-changing ambient device that can respond to human intention and group consciousness. The lamp combines a Psyleron true random event generator with algorithms and visual feedback designed to elicit a response from human consciousness. Whether used as a decorative centerpiece, a meditation tool, or a group game, the lamp is an engaging yet relaxing way to explore mind-matter interaction.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
According to quantum biology, the European robin has a 'sixth sense' in the form of a protein in its eye sensitive to the orientation of the Earth's magnetic field, allowing it to 'see' which way to migrate.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/26/youre-powered-by-quantum-mechanics-biology
Where have you been, Don - this is old news (3 years old). Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden have just got round to writing a book about it, that's all. Jovial Jim got his PhD at, and is Professor of Theroetical Physics at, my old university, Surrey.

I know , i know .I just wanted to tease you and Cheryl about the underpinning quantum "mechanics" behind "everything " , ironically speaking , while the key component or key "building block " of the universe : consciousness ,gets totally overlooked in that regard .
Don't you find that odd ?
No wonder that materialist science ignores the most important and key feature of the universe that way : consciousness .
Nice to know that you and Jim came from the same university , 'cause i am somehow a fan of the man , to some extent at least .I have some books of his , videos ....even though he's a bloody atheist lol .

He also has done a relatively good job regarding the Islam and science topic through one of his books , videos ...

By the way : Jim talks about the observer effect , wave/particle duality regarding the measurement problem in QM ...
What do you think about that , dlorde ?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

These guys would just say : oh, look , PEAR was already refuted ,and made many errors in designing experiments , interpreting them ....and no one , including the PEAR team, is able to replicate those experiments which were not done properly lol

dlorde   would even add  that that materialist standard model of quantum field theory is "evidence " enough for the "fact " that PEAR was wrong , a -priori lol

Thanks, once again, for posting that link : I have been reading their work : awesome .
« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 17:48:32 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

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

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/theory.html

Theoretical Models:


I. Theoretical Models:


Nearly three decades of intense experimentation leave little doubt that the anomalous physical phenomena appearing in the PEAR studies are valid, and are significantly correlated with such subjective variables as intention, meaning, resonance, and uncertainty. The stark inconsistencies of these results with established physical and psychological presumptions place extraordinary demands on the development of competent new theoretical models for constructive dialogue with the empirical data. But since the contemporary scientific approach leaves little room for such subjective correlates in its mechanistic representations of reality, it follows that science as we know it either must exclude itself from study of such phenomena, even when they precipitate objectively observable physical effects, or broaden its methodology and conceptual vocabulary to embrace subjective experience in some systematic way.



He's saying give up, ignore it, or change your research methods without suggestion of how they should be changed, what should be done differently.

Quote

The primary importance of operator intention and emotional resonance with the task at hand, along with the operator-specific structure evident in the data, the absence of traditional learning patterns, and the lack of explicit space and time dependence clearly predicate that no direct application or minor alteration of existing physical or psychological frameworks will suffice. Rather, nothing less than a generously expanded scientific model of reality, one that allows consciousness a proactive role in the establishment of its experience of the physical world, will be required. The challenges and caveats of such a "Science of the Subjective" are explored in detail in several of our publications.



He's saying you don't know how it works. But more importantly, he is also saying he doesn't know how it works.
Quote


One such model has been proposed and developed in "On the Quantum Mechanics of Consciousness, With Application to Anomalous Phenomena," under the major premise that the basic processes by which consciousness exchanges information with its environment, orders that information, and interprets it, also enable it to bias probabilistic systems and thereby to avail itself of some control over its reality. This model regards the concepts that underlie all physical models of reality, particularly those of observational quantum mechanics such as the principles of uncertainty, complementarity, exclusion, indistinguishability, and wave mechanical resonance, as fundamental characteristics of consciousness rather than as intrinsic features of an objective physical environment. In this view, the "anomalous" phenomena observed in the PEAR experiments become quite normal expectations of bonded human/machine and human/human systems, and the door is opened for all manner of creative consciousness/environment interactions.

He's saying it could have something to do with quantum mechanics, but he still can't explain how. He says he has a theory about how all this stuff is bonded together, or as David would say, interfaces, but he isn't telling us.

Quote

In a complementary approach, a modular conceptual framework has been articulated, wherein direct attention of the conscious mind to observable physical processes is bypassed altogether. Instead, an alternative route is proposed, whereby the inherently probabilistic nature of unconscious mind and intangible physical mechanisms are invoked to achieve anomalous acquisition of information about, or anomalous influence upon, otherwise inaccessible material processes (see "A Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations"). Theoretical requisites for its pursuit include better understanding of the dialogue between the conscious and unconscious aspects of the mind; more pragmatic formulations of the relations between tangible and intangible physical processes; and most importantly, cogent representation of the merging of mental and material dimensions into indistinguishability at their deepest levels.


I have no idea here what he is saying. But since you posted it, Don, I'm sure you can explain it. This seems to be  the critical paragraph that proves everthing.
Quote

A rudimentary attempt to represent this latter "subliminal seed space" has been attempted in the format of an array of complex vectors whose components embody the pre-objective and pre-subjective aspects of their interactions (M*: Vector Representation of the Subliminal Seed Regime of M5). Elementary algebraic arguments predict that the degree of anomalous correlation between the emergent conscious experiences and the corresponding tangible events depends only on the alignment of these interacting vectors, i.e., on the correspondence of the ratios of their individual "hard" and "soft" coordinates. This in turn suggests a subconscious alignment strategy based on need, desire, shared purpose, or personal resonance that is consistent with our empirical experience.


What? a subconscious resonance that is consistent with our empirical experience??? He truly is pulling stuff out of his ass.

Quote


In another closely related approach, entitled "Sensors, Filters, and the Source of Reality," we speak of the need to elevate the subjective capacities of consciousness to complementary status with the more objective physical senses, along with recognition of the bi-directional capabilities of both, thereby allowing establishment of resonant channels of communication between the mind and its ultimate Source that can exceed conventional information processing. The key elements in tuning these channels to amplify such information creation are the physiological and psychological filters imposed upon them, some of which can be enhanced or altered by conscious or unconscious attention.

Although the concepts and mechanics presented in this array of specific models may seem somewhat disparate, their larger value may lie in the identification of certain common-denominator issues that arise in one form or another in all of them. Taken together, they can provide a comprehensive conceptual framework for an overarching "science of the subjective" that may one day support a yet more fundamental representation of the full panorama of human experience.

um, okay, sure. the panorama of human experience is quite easily explained thus by your comprehensive over arching conceptual  frame work and common denominator issues. I totally get it now.
« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 17:45:32 by cheryl j »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I know , i know .I just wanted to tease you and Cheryl about the underpinning quantum "mechanics" behind "everything " , ironically speaking , while the key component or key "building block " of the universe : consciousness ,gets totally overlooked in that regard .
Don't you find that odd ?
Not at all; it's another straw man. Consciousness is the subject of a great deal of research.
 
Quote
By the way : Jim talks about the observer effect , wave/particle duality regarding the measurement problem in QM ...
What do you think about that , dlorde ?
Naturally he talks about it; it's his job - and he does it very well. Did you have any particular point you wish to make about it?
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
< blart >
He's saying give up, ignore it, or change your research methods without suggestion of how they should be changed, what should be done differently.

<blart>
He's saying you don't know how it works. But more importantly, he is also saying he doesn't know how it works.

< blart >
He's saying it could have something to do with quantum mechanics, but he still can't explain how. He says he has a theory about how all this stuff is bonded together, or as David would say, interfaces, but he isn't telling us.

< blart >
I have no idea here what he is saying. But since you posted it, Don, I'm sure you can explain it. This seems to be  the critical paragraph that proves everthing.

< blart >
What? a subconscious resonance that is consistent with our empirical experience??? He truly is pulling stuff out of his ass.

< blart >
um, okay, sure. the panorama of human experience is quite easily explained thus by your comprehensive over arching conceptual  frame work and common denominator issues. I totally get it now.

They're understandably desperate to justify all the time and money they've spent (I won't say wasted, because a lot was learned about experimental design, methodology, and data analysis), and they want another round of funding, and more time in the spotlight.

Note how other scientists, keen to make headway in exploiting this scientific terra nova and stamp their claim to fame and a potential Nobel Prize, pulled out all the stops to replicate their work with full controls & blinding - and failed. And when the PEAR team tried the same thing, they... also failed. 

So what did these pioneers of the unknown do next? they produced a lamp that changes colour randomly, as a party piece... tugs at the heartstrings, don't it?
« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 18:02:47 by dlorde »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg443274#msg443274 date=1414518392]
I know , i know .I just wanted to tease you and Cheryl about the underpinning quantum "mechanics" behind "everything " , ironically speaking , while the key component or key "building block " of the universe : consciousness ,gets totally overlooked in that regard .
Don't you find that odd ?
Not at all; it's another straw man. Consciousness is the subject of a great deal of research.

You don't get it : since consciousness is too insignificant and too irrelevant a 'force " to be detected by the standard model of quantum field theory, and since consciousness has no causal effects on matter , why would one bother give it a second thought lol , according to materialism at least .

Those materialist consciousness studies or materialist so-called models or theories of consciousness were just assuming that consciousness is either identical with the brain , just brain activity ,  a useless side effect of evolution , an epiphenomena , or that it does not exist as such : just an illusion .

Why study it then ?

Furthermore, neuroscience alone can never explain consciousness ,since the latter is neither identical with the brain, nor is it brain activity ...

Why stick to the false materialist so-called model or theory of consciousness , while you have better theories and models of consciousness , such as those  of PEAR ,and such as those of non-materialist scientists such as the ones Carter talked about and more ?
 
Quote
Quote
By the way : Jim talks about the observer effect , wave/particle duality regarding the measurement problem in QM ...
What do you think about that , dlorde ?
Naturally he talks about it; it's his job - and he does it very well. Did you have any particular point you wish to make about it?

Well, our self-declared quantum physicist alancalverd   here above denies the wave / particle duality as such , let alone the observer effect regarding the measurement paradox in QM .

Not to mention that Jim did acknowledge the existence of the observer effect in QM , observer effect  you yourself dismissed as such .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
< blart >
He's saying give up, ignore it, or change your research methods without suggestion of how they should be changed, what should be done differently.

<blart>
He's saying you don't know how it works. But more importantly, he is also saying he doesn't know how it works.

< blart >
He's saying it could have something to do with quantum mechanics, but he still can't explain how. He says he has a theory about how all this stuff is bonded together, or as David would say, interfaces, but he isn't telling us.

< blart >
I have no idea here what he is saying. But since you posted it, Don, I'm sure you can explain it. This seems to be  the critical paragraph that proves everthing.

< blart >
What? a subconscious resonance that is consistent with our empirical experience??? He truly is pulling stuff out of his ass.

< blart >
um, okay, sure. the panorama of human experience is quite easily explained thus by your comprehensive over arching conceptual  frame work and common denominator issues. I totally get it now.

They're understandably desperate to justify all the time and money they've spent (I won't say wasted, because a lot was learned about experimental design, methodology, and data analysis), and they want another round of funding, and more time in the spotlight.

Note how other scientists, keen to make headway in exploiting this scientific terra nova and stamp their claim to fame and a potential Nobel Prize, pulled out all the stops to replicate their work with full controls & blinding - and failed. And when the PEAR team tried the same thing, they... also failed. 

So what did these pioneers of the unknown do next? they produced a lamp that changes colour randomly, as a party piece... tugs at the heartstrings, don't it?

You can't be serious , dlorde :

There is no separation between the observer and the observed .We constantly interact with our inner and outer environment by exchanging information with them , energy , matter and more , come on .

How can science keep on ignoring that and the fact the whole universe is in fact interconnected ,so, the subjective and objective cannot be separated , and hence we cannot but influence and exchange information and more with our environment ,and vice versa .

To say the least ...

The dualist Cartesian old myth and its materialist monistic version regarding the observer -independence are no longer completely valid  .come on .

As Von Neumann used to say : the measurement problem in QM takes place in the mind . Our minds ' representations of reality have been taken for granted as reality .
« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 18:12:40 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

I suggest re-reading those articles more carefully , while trying to take a closer look at the work and results of PEAR .
You misunderstood what they said completely .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Intent , beliefs and expectations, desires , wishes ... do affect the interpretation of scientific data , the design of experiments and their outcome and much more ...Wow ...The observer and the observed are inseparable thus . Think about all the major and unprecedented implications of all that .The subjective cannot be separated from the "objective" , even in science itself .See the subjective science concept in that research ...


Don't start confusing or conflating subjectivity because of limited information, incorrect information, or bias, with indeterminacy. If my husband is at a friend's watching hockey when I think he is out shopping for a present for me, I am just simply wrong. He is not in a superpositioned state until I find out what has occurred, and  I cannot collapse a wave form and cause one or the other to have happened. What you're referring to is just magical thinking.

What i meant is : the observer and the observed are inseparable:  in a nutshell , Cheryl : See that above mentioned scientific research , if you don't wanna read Carter : they are both in line .

You can dismiss my comment and redirect me to more physics, but it doesn't address the fact that you somehow think consciousness is a force that can change what happens on a macro level, that somehow by wanting or willing things to be different than they are, we can make that happen by non physical means. Or that some non material force underlies consciousness itself, is the primary mechanism for how it all works, when you have no theory or explanation to support it.

Once again : the observer and the observed are inseparable : the subjective and objective are inseparable : the subjective interferes with the objective : or as Von Neumann used to say : the measurement paradox in QM takes place in the mind , so , we take the respresentations of the mind in that regard for the physical reality in QM , for example .

Take a closer look at the work and results of PEAR .

For example , even at the macro level : have you ever been so immersed in your creative work, or other life experiences , art ....to the extent that you "lost " yourself in that environment ?

When we do or feel, experience things through  our whole beings , we become inseparately one with our environment . Only when we think , try to analyze things , we get the illusion or impression , or perception that we are separate from our environment .
We are always immersed in our inner and outer environments , while exchanging information, energy , matter with our environments , consciously or sub-consciously .

Sometimes , we are not aware of that , so, we have the illusion that we are separate beings or separate individuals from our environment .

The whole universe is in fact interconnected = 1, whether we are aware of that fact or not  : this is no new age bullshit .

Even when you are working on your pc, or walking out your dog , you are interacting with them and with the rest of your environment at that time and place and beyond  , influencing them , and vice versa , by exchanging information with them, consciously or subcosnciously .

Only when you think, analyze things ...you get the impression or illusion that you are separate or independent from your environment in some way .
« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 19:47:25 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
What do you have to say about this other scientific bombshell ?
<sigh> Even older news, a damp squib. I refer you to my previous answer, post #239.

Yeah, i was so excited by PEAR that i missed your previous post,sorry  . I have never heard of PEAR before , to be honest , untill our friend here brought it up .

It may be old , but , it was a three -decades study , so .

You can't just dismiss what PEAR did and found out , just through saying that they made some errors here and there...

Everytime we talk about this or that , you , guys , always say : oh , it was refuted , or it was bullshit , or there was something wrong with the experiments or their interpretations , there was fraud , bias , confirmation bias , wishful thinking ...Come on .

Non -materialist scientists also say : we have refuted materialists .

So, everybody was refuted then lol = nobody was = a paradox .

That's no serious way to approach that .

PEAR just relied on QM mainly, and on the fact that science has been ignoring the central role of consciousness and its subjective experiences , inner life ...and their impacts on our environments with which we interact daily , by exchanging information with them , by influencing them ,and vice versa ....

All those interpretations of quantum theory , for example, do have subjective as well as objective elements in them ,so , or as Von Neumann used to say : the measurement paradox or problem in QM takes in fact place in the mind , so, what we take for granted as the physical reality in QM   takes partly place in the mind : our minds' representations of reality have been taken for granted as reality itself .

Even the very major fact that materialism has been taken for granted as science or as the scientific world view for relatively so long now  and counting  , without question , is evidence for the fact that science itself is driven by both subjective and objective elements or 'forces " .

The objective and subjective that are inseparable , as the observer and the observed also are : the old dichotomy between subjectivity and objectivity , or that the mind is separate from matter , or that the objective reality is independent from the observer were/are just myths thus .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg443225#msg443225 date=1414451541]
What makes this all very interesting is the notion that consciousness (for which we now have something approaching a definition, in another thread) is necessary in order for a subatomic particle to interact with matter. This inverts the entire concept of time because it implies that conscious life must have preceded the evolution of the universe, including conscious life itself.


Well, some physicists say that nothing exists really without consciousness , and that the fact that the universe existed long before conscious life emerged on earth was due to the fact that there is some ultimate source of consciousness : call it cosmic consciousness , God , Zeus or whatever .

So, all conscious life on earth has an ultimat consciosu source , or so they say at least .
Quote
It raises further interesting questions.


Yeah,indeed .You have no idea .

Quote
For instance if the presence of a conscious being is required in order for an electron to excite a phosphor, how does the electron decide where to go in the presence of two or more conscious beings?

There is 1 ultimate source of consciousness , or so they say at least : there is thus no independent individual consciousness .

Before observed , particles existed only as waves of possibilities , eventualities , probabilities ..waiting to be actualized , i guess , as quantum physicist idealist monist Amit Goswami and others say .



Quote
What happens to the electron in the absence of an observer? Does it disappear up its own anus, or are charge and mass conserved, as we used to think?

See above : it "pops in and out of existence " , so to speak ....When not observed , particles "exist " just as waves of possibilities , probabilities , ....

Quote
Neutrons approaching Earth from the sun, decay. That involves, in one model, the collapse of a couple of wavefunctions so it seems that the consciousness of beings on earth extends several million miles sunwards. But the sun radiates in all directions, so can we assume that neutrons do not decay en route to Mars or Pluto? If so, how do they know that they have passed beyond Earth's orbit?

Yeah, that's an interesting question indeed .
Physicists conducted experiments where the very act of observing particles through measuring devices of course , stop decaying or do not decay , as long as they are regularily measured ...

Maybe, THE ultimate source of all consciousness is behind all that .I don't know .

There are thus no chains of conscious observers , since there is only 1 ultimate source of consciousness, i guess. I don't know .

Quote
And why, if we measure the solar particle spectrum from a space probe, do we find the halflife of neutrons to be constant? Surely if the conscious observer moves relative to the source, he should see the same spectrum of neutrons and decay products because his consciousness is moving with him, but we actually find the spectrum varies exactly as if consciousness had no effect.
 

Maybe , the very act of checking out that data , changes it . I don't know .

Quote
Sorry, Don, but your hypothesis fails the simplest of tests.

That's not my hypothesis , i wish , but that of QM .

See what i said to dlorde   concerning the inseparable subjective and objective aspects of science itself as just a human social activity , and to some extent as a cultural one as well .

Quote
PS re: European robins. Although they are all the same species (and quite different from American robins) their migration behaviour varies according to where they live. Scandinavian robins migrate over significant distances, and north-south, as their main food sources are not available in wintertime. In the British Isles, and particularly Ireland, robins are very territorial and don't really migrate in a particular direction but spend more time closer to human habitation or in their warmer feeding grounds in winter. Mediterranean robins hardly move at all. Not sure about "quantum biology" but we have known for at least 50 years that pigeons have magnetic field sensors, and there is some weak evidence that humans do too. All of which points rather strongly to a conventional concept of evolution and adaptation.

Well, i brought that up just to give our dlorde   here the impression , illusion or perception that the entire universe is quantum mechanical , in the non -Von Neumann sense lol , just to allow him the futile and false pleasure regarding his cherished and beloved standard model of quantum field theory .

I think that since materialism is false , that materialist standard model of quantum field theory is just approximately correct , but fundamentally ...false , since the nature of reality is not exclusively material or physical , and since the non-physical consciousness cannot but play a central or key role in QM and in the rest of the universe: See PEAR research .


« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 20:40:12 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Multiverse theory, for example,  is in fact not  only a clear , major and grotesque violation of Occam's razor , but is also ...untestable , unfalsifiable , unverifiable....just a fantasy , a subjective fabrication , an easthetic subjective matter of taste ...
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
... Not sure about "quantum biology" but we have known for at least 50 years that pigeons have magnetic field sensors, and there is some weak evidence that humans do too. All of which points rather strongly to a conventional concept of evolution and adaptation.
Yes, quite. The fuss about electron transfer in photosynthesis and the magnetic navigation of robins at the time was due to surprise that any quantum effects persisted long enough in the noisy and warm environment of molecular biology to be used to advantage. Evolution had stumbled across a couple of unexpected optimisations.

Don't you realise the fact , dlorde , that you have just replaced the appearance of design in nature by yet another form of design ? , a highly implausible one at that , that is : that of the almighty lol unguided blind random gradual , step by step, highly unlikely , mathematically impossible , lottery lol of the mysterious( Like that mysterious invisible hand of the market lol )  so-called natural selection through random mutations ...(Even James A.Shapiro and others have already refuted that neo-Darwinian genetic determinism .) ...

May God bless the invisible mysterious magical hand of the evolution-god lol   that works through mysterious ways lol = materialist physics-metaphysics lol
« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 21:14:18 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Materialist "scientific " fairy tales or versions of the origin of life , the evolution of life , the origin of conscious life , regarding how the universe works , what the universe is made of , regarding the nature of reality ...were / are the most incredible  subjective-objective tragic -hilarious forms of fiction or fantasy the human mind has ever or will ever imagine or produce lol , the partly most implausible physics-metaphysics ever imagined ....

And you tell me that subjectivity and objectivity are not   inseparable in science and elsewhere , or that the observer is independent from the observed ? You gotta be kidding me lol

Descartes' legacy has been so devastating to both humanity and science ...

It's about time to get rid of that legacy , or just of its false aspects .

Once upon a time , ...........
« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 21:07:08 by DonQuichotte »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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