The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 188260 times)

Offline domkarr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
thanks for the replies

always happy to make people smile, it's a cheap and pleasant medicine I've found.

In one of the fields that I have studied, graphic design, there is a phenomena that I cannot remember the name for that advertisers use. usually in order to manipulate the client.
Also entertainment industry relies very heavily upon this.

It goes something like this (I cannot find the original experiment so I'm fictionalizing one). so lets say there is just a line on a blank page and nothing else and you show that line to a hundred people. Pretty much everyone in the group when asked will describe it as a line with little variation. but then you show the group a white line on a black background and suddenly the description variates and some people begin to use unusual descriptions like a worm in the dirt and so on.

then the same thing with a plain box on a blank white page, peoples description of the box variates very little as with the line but then when adding a color such as green people start to fill the box not with color but other things like leaves or vomit or they start to say that the box is sick or that the box holds a forest. a lot admittedly would describe the box as a simple green box.

make the box red and bounce on a computer screen and all of a sudden people give the box a personality to match an action the box is suddenly jumping mad. say if the box was blue and slowly moving up and down then the description might be something like a sad box creature plodding along a rainy road.

anyway the point is that; essentially the box hasn't really changed in any significant way but in the human mind the box has suddenly come to life and has a personality.
The more visual effects that are added the more character, story and variances are created by the group until a point is reached where just about every single person has a different story for the box.

anyway, the thing that I am getting at is, in a way this is similar to what I would personally think of as a consciousness (this is my limited thought on the matter and in no way a thesis). Is it not possible that although we are by and large, widely receptive of reality as being real and therefore quantifiable.

That it is entirely possible that the reason consciousness is not as quantifiable is because we are not all in our minds experiencing the same version of consciousness but more sort of making up our own individual version of consciousness? is what I am perplexed about.

I'm just curious to hear if this has been considered before or if there was anything in this line of thinking at all.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
That it is entirely possible that the reason consciousness is not as quantifiable is because we are not all in our minds experiencing the same version of consciousness but more sort of making up our own individual version of consciousness? is what I am perplexed about.

I'm just curious to hear if this has been considered before or if there was anything in this line of thinking at all.
This has been a major theme of philosophy since man started philosophising. Naturally, each of us is unique in genetic expression, developmental detail, and life experience, so our brains are unique; but, as Cheryl alluded to previously, we all have the same physical brain structures performing the same functions, our genetics are broadly similar, and for most of us, our basic experiences of the world are similar. Considering the evolutionary context, consciousness is a trait evolving in populations because it gives a selective advantage, and in humans has strong social and communication function, also implying fundamental similarities.

So it seems reasonable to assume that, despite differences in detail, our consciousnesses should be similar enough that we can gain advantage from understanding each other and sharing experience vicariously or empathically (the discovery of mirror neurons suggests this is important).

There will be some people that do have significant differences, due to developmental problems, etc. Your description of the way people respond to elaborations of simple images reminds me of an example of the difference between normative and autistic consciousness. Subjects are shown a short 2D animation where a small square, a circle, and a triangle are moving around a square 'box' or room with a single opening or 'door'. The circle repeatedly moves towards the door and as it does so, the triangle repeatedly moves to obstruct its entry. After a while, the square moves over to obstruct the triangle and the circle moves inside the 'room'.

Normative subjects generally describe this animation as an anthropomorphic story, giving the shapes motivation, and character, for example, with the 'bad guy' triangle bullying the circle and the 'good guy' square stepping in to stop the bullying and allow the circle to proceed (or some similar story). Autistic subjects are generally more literal, just describing the shapes moving, and not attributing motivation or character (i.e. not making a story of it).
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
When you try to move on to QM that replaced the classical deterministic universe with the probabilistic one , your 'arguments " will fade or smelt  away like snow under the bright lovely warm smiling sun .



Nothing I've said is incompatible with a probabilistic universe. You are the one making a special exemption for consciousness from that universe.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

You wanted 10 points .I will give you 20 .I am very generous ,so people say lol at least .

I will summarize my  20 points for you, regarding consciousness in its mutual interactions with its environment , including with the physical brain and with the rest of the physical reality , as follows :

1- Consciousness is obviously a non-physical process .Anyone who would say otherwise is either a fool , an idiot or a materialist lol .

2 - Human conscious free will does exist as such , in its limited mindful volitional effort of attention and action via the veto power , as Libet proved .Anyone who would think otherwise is either a fraud , an idiot , a fool or a classical determinist , not to mention a deterministic materialist who cannot but (mis )interpret QM materialistically .

3- The non-physical and non -local nature of consciousness has been proved as such by the related indirect empirical evidence,including by the world's leading neuroscientists and others such as  Benjamin Libet, Lord Adrian, Sir John Eccles, Herbert Jasper,Charles Phillips,Wilder Penfield, Roger Sperry,Frederic Bremer, Ragnar Granit, Anders Lundberg, Robert Doty, and Howard Shevrin.....

4- Consciousness and the mind +their related processes have to work through their  physical brain , through  their related neuronal correlates ,so any damage to the latter ,either via injuries, diseases , genetic or other defect ... has to affect the expression of the former through the latter accordingly.

5- Consciousness can exist separately of its brain as many near death experiences , out of body experiences and more ...have proved .

6 - All materialistic physiological , material and psychological "explanations " (away) of the placebo /nocebo effects  , near death experiences , remote viewing and other psi phenomena , biofeedback training that enables one   to take control of one's own autonomic nervous system and more , the effects of meditation , mindfulness , the informed trained self-directed neuroplasticity ....have been refuted and do hold no water whatsoever .

7- As Libet and others admitted , there is nothing in science that contradicts the possible existence of a soul, an afterlife ...nothing in science that can contradict the belief that consciousness can take off ,after death , to some destination beyond this world, unless one would equate  science with  the false materialistic conception of nature ,  as the majority of scientists today have been doing , unfortunately enough  .

8- Correlation between the mind and its brain does not necessarily imply causation .There is no conclusive empirical evidence whatsoever that proves that the relationship between the mind and its brain is not a mere correlation .

9-Materialistic monistic identity or production theory is just a false belief , no scientific theory .

10- The emergent property phenomena theory regarding the origin , emergence and function of consciousness has not been proved conclusively ,including Libet's conscious mental field theory .
The mere activity of the brain can intrinsically never account for , let alone explain, consciousness thus .

11-QM had replaced the deterministic universe  of classical physics with the probabilistic one .

12-QM had replaced the causally closed universe of classical physics with the causally open one,or as Von Neumann proved through rigorous maths : a non-physical process is the one that might be collapsing the wave function via a non-mechanical causation : consciousness of the observer at the end of the measurement chain, since conscious observation has to be made at the end of that chain,after all  .

13-QM can never be understood without reference to the mind : the 2 major enigmas have been encountering  each other thus : consciousness and QM that are inseparable from each other .

14-QM had challenged locality and realism of classical physics, and had intoduced the limited notion of free will as well at the level of the measurements in QM ,as Bell's theorem and its related or stimulated experiments had proved  .

15-Bell's theorem and its related experiments corroborated the predictions of QM by challenging the classical realism :
The properties of the observed particles are NOT independent of their observation : the observed is not independent of the observer .

16-QM has already been proving the fact that any real progress in the scientific study of the physical universe  will be almost impossible without that in the study of consciousness ,since the former and the latter are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other .

17-Biological evolution can never account for the emergence nature function or orgin of consciousness ,since the latter cannot arise from the former .

18- The origin of life and the evolution of life are inseparable of the nature of life ,as well as of consciousness (Life cannot but be conscious ) ,meaning : since materialism is false , because it can intrinsically never account for, let alone explain, consciousness ,then any theories of the origin of life , the nature of life , the evolution of life must take into consideration and account for the existence of consciousness that's irreducible to matter or to brain activity .

19 - Since conscious life cannot be reduced to just material processes , then evolution cannot be just biological .

20- Considering all the above , all what materialistic science has been telling us about the origin of the universe , the origin of life , the evolution of life , the nature of life and more must be reexamined and revisited , to say the least .

I will add just one last point then :

Science is just a human social activity , and to some extent a cultural one also (see how the Eurocentric materialistic ideology  has been not only dominating in science , but has been also equated with science as well , without question, almost worldwide,since the second half of the 19th century at least  .), and since the old Cartesian dichotomy between the subjective and the objective , or between the observer and the observed is false , then some aspects of science cannot but be subjective also ,which means that naturalistic science, its naturalistic methodology , its naturalistic epistemology and naturalistic vocabulary as well (science has to be communicated through human language  anyway ) that do go beyond the materialistic ones,needless to add ,  must incorporate or integrate the subjective element in the rational empiricism of science thus .

There is a lot more to say on the subject , but i will leave it at then, for the time being at least .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
When you try to move on to QM that replaced the classical deterministic universe with the probabilistic one , your 'arguments " will fade or smelt  away like snow under the bright lovely warm smiling sun .



Nothing I've said is incompatible with a probabilistic universe. You are the one making a special exemption for consciousness from that universe.

You do believe in the emergent property theory regarding the emergence function and origin of consciousness , don't you ?

I hope that you have already kissed goodbye that false materialistic belief that's no scientific theory : identity or production theory , thanks to Libet and others .

How can consciousness have any degree of causal efficacy , let alone any degree of free will then , if it had arisen  from just the determined physics and chemistry of the so-called evolutionary complexity of the brain ?

Don't tell me about that materialistic paradoxical top-down causation or about higher and lower levels of brain "processing " , since reductionist materialism cannot but allow a bottom- up causation , so any so-called top-down causation must be the latter in disguise .

Not to mention that even Libet could not prove how his conscious mental field theory can account for that conscious aware top-down causation through the veto power .

There is no way to account for all that and more than through acknowledging the fact that aware consciousness does play a central role in shaping its environment , including its physical brain and the rest of the physical reality ,as QM has been showing ,consciousness that's not only irreducible to brain activity , but can also  never be an emergent property of brain activity , and hence consciousness has to be a central and key component or key "building block " of the universe , not a property of matter and  not an emergent property of matter  .

Consciousness that's more primordial than matter can ever be . "Matter " that's the one that might be just an elaborate and persistent illusion that feels ,taste , looks, sounds ...real , not consciousness thus , who knows ?

No wonder that 0,00000...1 % of the universe , including ourselves thus , is made out of "matter " :

The whole human population of this planet can fit into an apple, for example, if all 'empty space " in it would be 'sucked out of it "  .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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


 before you look we could have proven—with an interference experiment—that each atom was a wave equally in both boxes.
Wrong. Not "proven" but "modelled"

Quote
After you look it was in a single box.
Yes

Quote
It was thus your observation that created the reality of each atom’s existence in a particular box.
No.

Before the race, we had a good idea of which dog was likely to win, based on previous form - a probability model. Indeed the bookies have a reasonable wave function for all the dogs. After the race we know exactly which dog won. But our presence at the finishing post had nothing to do with it - he won by being faster than the others over the half mile that we didn't see.

If observation creates the reality of the atom in the box, then observation equally creates the nonexistence of the atom in the other box. But that is absurd - either the same action (opening the box) produces two completely different outcomes, or every observation creates an atom - which is patently untrue as it means that two simultaneous observations creates two atoms where only one existed beforehand. That would indeed be interesting: it would mean that the universe is doubling its mass every time an atom interacts with another - which is not observed.

So, put simply, in quantum mechanics "observation" does not have its colloquial meaning.

I do not agree with the concept or term " creates "  , collapses or "freezes" the wave function would be more correct , i guess :

Rosenblum and Kuttner sum up the puzzle:

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

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

After you look it was in a single box. It was thus your observation that created the reality of each atom’s existence in a particular box. Before your observation only probability existed.

 But it was not the probability that an actual object existed in a particular place (as in the classical shell game)—it was just the probability of a future observation of such an object, which does not include the assumption that the object existed there prior to its observation. This hard-to-accept observer-created reality is the measurement problem in quantum mechanics" End quote

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

Quote : "Physicist J. C. Polkinghorne sums up the metaphysical confusion many quantum theorists feel when he writes:
"It is a curious tale. All over the world measurements are continually being made on quantum mechanical systems. The theory triumphantly predicts, within its probabilistic limits, what their outcomes will be. It is all a great success. Yet we do not understand what is going on. Does the fixity on a particular occasion set in as a purely mental act of knowledge? At a transition from small to large physical systems? At the interface of matter and mind that we call consciousness?.
In one of the many subsequent worlds into which the universe has divided itself?".

Perhaps one interpretation is simpler or more logically consistent, or perhaps one of the interpretations is more aesthetically pleasing than the others. These considerations may provide philosophical reasons for preferring one over the others, but such reasons can hardly be considered decisive. However, a fascinating set of experiments performed by physicist

Helmut Schmidt and others appears to show that conscious intent can affect the behavior of otherwise purely random quantum phenomena. Could an experiment be designed to test the Von Neumann interpretation?
Consciousness is central to the von Neumann interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 According to this interpretation, some properties of quantum phenomena do not exist in any definite state except through the intervention of a conscious mind, at which point the wave function of possibilities collapses into a single state. The usual form of this interpretation allows the observer to collapse the wave function to a unique outcome but not to have any effect on what outcome actually occurs: the actual outcome is assumed to be randomly chosen by nature from the range of values provided by the wave function. But the experiments of German physicist Helmut Schmidt and other physicists indicate that the consciousness of the observer may not only collapse the wave function to a single outcome but may also help specify what outcome occurs by shifting the odds in a desired direction." End quote
« Last Edit: 17/12/2014 20:40:29 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

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

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

Source : "Quantum Enigma , Physics encounters consciousness : "

http://quantumenigma.com/

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

.......


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

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

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

..........

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

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

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



 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

See my 20+ points here above and more . Thanks.Cheers .

alancalverd :

What do you make of Bell's theorem and its related experiments ? See above and more .

dlorde :

Since the materialistic identity or production theory regarding the origin function and emergence of consciousness is a false belief , no scientific theory , what alternatives for that can you propose ?

The emergent property theory on the same subject has not been proved conclusively (how can it ever be ) , so .

domkarr :

Welcome to the party lol

What theory of consciousness are you inclined to "fall for " .Thanks .
 

Offline dlorde

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

What particular word , concept , sentence or whatever exactly can't  you understand from the following ?
I understand all the quotes you posted. What's your point?
 

Offline dlorde

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

Since the materialistic identity or production theory regarding the origin function and emergence of consciousness is a false belief , no scientific theory , what alternatives for that can you propose ?
Since the theory of immaterial non-physical consciousness interacting with the brain is a self-contradictory, unevidenced example of magical thinking, what alternatives can you propose?  ::)
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Since the materialistic identity or production theory regarding the origin function and emergence of consciousness is a false belief , no scientific theory , what alternatives for that can you propose ?
Since the theory of immaterial non-physical consciousness interacting with the brain is a self-contradictory, unevidenced example of magical thinking, what alternatives can you propose?  ::)

Really ? See my 20+ points to our Cheryl   here above then .I am not quite sure about some of them at least .

Even the  world's leading neuroscientists such as Libet , Eccles, Penfield , Sperry and many others + philosophers such as Popper , Nagel,Chalmers , Searle  ... (regardless of the fact that the latter's philosophical theories are untestable + regardless of the fact that the emergent property theory in relation to consciousness has not been proved conclusively ...) + physicists such as Stapp and others + cognitive scientists such as Schwartz ( the latter did base his work on Stapp's work and Libet's conscious mental field theory ) and others did acknowledge the obvious fact that consciousness is a non-physical process at least .A fact you cannot but consider as being "magical " , since you are a materialist (just projecting thus lol ) .

Everything that goes beyond materialism is , per definition, "magical or supernatural " lol , no wonder .

On the other hand , dualism and idealism do make more scientific sense than materialism, so .

The non-physical and non-local nature of consciousness is compatible and consistent with QM, for example, see Von Neumann and the rest .

Try to break free from classical physics then upon which materialism was built .

See Stap's work ,for example, despite its flaws .to mention just that one ,or just Libet's work then .

Consciousness studies are still in their infancy stage though : take your pick : all materialist theories of consciousness must be either completely or partly eliminated from the competition , i guess, since the materialistic identity or production theory is false , and since materialism as a whole is also false : Take your pick thus :

http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html

P.S.: Forget about what happened earlier on .These kindda topics cannot but involve heated passions sometimes....nothing personal thus .My apologies .Thanks .Good night .Take care .Cheers .

Oh, yeah , Graziano , Damasio , Dehanne Stanislas ,Ben Goldacre Bad Science , Penrose -Hameroff , and many others ( Got both the kindle bad science ebook and the audio now .Read some of the placebo part . Have all those other books also .) ....and other materialists do have some interesting things to say , but it's such a waste of talent , intelligence , knowledge ....since they all base their theories on the identity or production theory belief .

Imagine what you,as a scientist ,  and those other materialist scientists can accomplish if they only would realize how false materialism is and move on beyond it like Libet , Eccles and the mentioned rest above did . Such a waste of talent , really .

Take care .Nice holidays by the way .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

What particular word , concept , sentence or whatever exactly can't  you understand from the following ?
I understand all the quotes you posted. What's your point?

What i meant was/is :
You have (mis)interpreted them materialistically , i guess ,while they were so clear about what they were saying about classical realism ,classical determinism, and classical locality that have been challenged by QM and and by Bell's theorem and its related experiments ....Later , more  .

Gotta go now, thanks . Good night.Cheers.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Really ? See my 20+ points to our Cheryl   here above then .I am not quite sure about some of them at least .
Those that made any kind of sense were either variations on the assertion 'materialism is wrong so you're wrong', or non-sequiturs. Hitchens's razor applies.


Quote
P.S.: Forget about what happened earlier on .These kindda topics cannot but involve heated passions sometimes....nothing personal thus .My apologies .Thanks .Good night .Take care .Cheers .
You've done that often enough that I'm well aware of your instability.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
What i meant was/is :
You have (mis)interpreted them materialistically , i guess ,while they were so clear about what they were saying about classical realism ,classical determinism, and classical locality that have been challenged by QM and and by Bell's theorem and its related experiments ....Later , more 
More unevidenced assertion. By all means explain how I'm mistaken, or produce a reasoned argument. I won't hold my breath.
 

Offline cheryl j

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

You wanted 10 points .I will give you 20 .I am very generous ,so people say lol at least .

I will summarize my  20 points for you, regarding consciousness in its mutual interactions with its environment , including with the physical brain and with the rest of the physical reality , as follows :



As I anticipated, most of your points for your view of consciousness were variations of "materialism is false."

You reject mounds of evidence regarding neuroscience as mere correlation (or the "image" of the process), but are not bothered in the least by the dismal lack of direct evidence (or even well replicated correlations!) for psi, souls, life after death, psycho-kinesis, consciousness outside the brain, etc.

You haven't convinced me that your amalgamation of quantum mechanics contributes anything to the understanding of consciousness itself, and it utterly fails to address any of the deficits you attributed to material explanation when you first began this thread.

Your particular brand of quantum woo is less of a means to describe any aspect of consciousness than it is an attempt to justify an irrational argument lacking evidence. If there is no determinism on any level, OR if consciousness is exempt from even probabilistic predictions, then one theory of consciousness is as valid as the next, equally likely, irrefutable, and simply a preference.

It would be essentially the same argument if you proposed that because of indeterminacy in the universe, astrology, voo-doo, crystal healing, homeopathy, magic spells -anything at all - must all be considered equally valid phenomena, since there is no basis for any criteria for facts or beliefs.

Basically your strategy is, if you can't construct a rational argument, attack rationality itself, and assert that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, fool, etc.
« Last Edit: 18/12/2014 00:36:17 by cheryl j »
 

Online alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Sorry, Don, but repetitively quoting something I had carefully pointed out was obviously wrong, doesn't make it right.

We now have the capability to detect a single photon or particle with versions of the double-slit experiment. When we do so, it is in one place only. If we repeat the experiment, the next particle may turn out to be somewhere else. And when we do it lots of times, we get a distribution that looks exactly like the diffraction pattern of the wave function of a single particle. No problem: that is how nature works. I can't see why you get so excited by it.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
But the experiments of German physicist Helmut Schmidt and other physicists indicate that the consciousness of the observer may not only collapse the wave function to a single outcome but may also help specify what outcome occurs by shifting the odds in a desired direction." End quote

I question how many physicists besides Schmidt believe this. Is he this Helmut Schmidt?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Schmidt_%28parapsychologist%29

If this were true, why wouldn't every scientist conducting the measurement get a completely different distribution?
« Last Edit: 18/12/2014 00:33:55 by cheryl j »
 

Offline cheryl j

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


11-QM had replaced the deterministic universe  of classical physics with the probabilistic one .

12-QM had replaced the causally closed universe of classical physics with the causally open one,or as Von Neumann proved through rigorous maths : a non-physical process is the one that might be collapsing the wave function via a non-mechanical causation : consciousness of the observer at the end of the measurement chain, since conscious observation has to be made at the end of that chain,after all  .

13-QM can never be understood without reference to the mind : the 2 major enigmas have been encountering  each other thus : consciousness and QM that are inseparable from each other .

14-QM had challenged locality and realism of classical physics, and had intoduced the limited notion of free will as well at the level of the measurements in QM ,as Bell's theorem and its related or stimulated experiments had proved  .

15-Bell's theorem and its related experiments corroborated the predictions of QM by challenging the classical realism :
The properties of the observed particles are NOT independent of their observation : the observed is not independent of the observer .

16-QM has already been proving the fact that any real progress in the scientific study of the physical universe  will be almost impossible without that in the study of consciousness ,since the former and the latter are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other .

Regarding 11-16:

I really didn’t ask for your 10 points in order to toss back at you the same criticisms I’ve made before. I was genuinely trying to piece together the logical steps in your own version of consciousness theory (as opposed to just materialism is false.)

Considering how critical you are of gaps, there would seem to be a lot of them. Perhaps you can fill them in for me.

Your theory seems to go something like this:
An observation in quantum mechanics requires a conscious human to make a choice in what to measure, and become aware of the result in order to collapse the wavefunction. --->

Consciousness can collapse wave functions without measuring devices made up of physical material. Not only is an observation “not  just,” it does not even require physical interactions, interference by particles. Immaterial thoughts alone will have the same effect. --->

Consciousness can collapse the wave functions in the brain without actually being aware that it is engaging in that the process. While Stapp used quantum effects mainly to explain how an unidentified conscious agency freely selects from a number of conscious choices, Hammeroff says that somehow  these options may bubble up from the subconscious neural machinery, and consciousness selects from among them, which is not entirely different from Libet or any materialist theory, (other than materialists see the executive function as being generated by the structures like the prefrontal cortex).But with any of these scenarios, the process itself is subconscious, and it only becomes conscious after the results are in. That is, I am not aware of where to go looking for these ideas or options, how or when they first took up residence. I am not aware of this underlying quantum activity or its application, as if  I were perusing and selecting from my closet which shirt I am going to wear that day. I am unaware of these underlying interactions (quantum or conventional) or the location or generation of these choices. When I have a “tip of the tongue” experience, I do not know where to go looking for the celebrity name that I can’t recall or why it suddenly pops in my head 3 hours later.

It would appear that Stapp and Hammeroff are replicating in their theory the set up of the interference experiment on a microscopic scale in the brain, as near as I can tell, even though the “choices” to be selected from (to measure or not measure) are manifestly conscious in the experiment, and the specific outcome is not actually controllable.

Or perhaps the above is not how your own theory works at all – that from your “consciousness collapses the wave function” assertion you  jump to the idea that consciousness is a kind of as yet undetected universal field,  that finds its way to my brain transceiver and controls me like a robot, but the real work of consciousness, all thought and deliberation, all subjective experience and qualia, etc occurs elsewhere though mechanisms that are unknown and undetected. Some aspect of this nonlocal consciousness is discrete and unique to “me” and no one else, separate from other biological robot's designated share of the universal consciousness.
That is quite a leap, and you haven’t actually presented any evidence from physicists, or even models from physicists who think the above might be true. If I’m confused about how your theory actually works, perhaps you could enlighten me and bridge those explanatory gaps.

« Last Edit: 18/12/2014 14:43:01 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446745#msg446745 date=1418854587]
Really ? See my 20+ points to our Cheryl   here above then .I am not quite sure about some of them at least .
Those that made any kind of sense were either variations on the assertion 'materialism is wrong so you're wrong', or non-sequiturs. Hitchens's razor applies.

No way . You can do much better than that , dlorde , come on .

Quote
Quote
P.S.: Forget about what happened earlier on .These kindda topics cannot but involve heated passions sometimes....nothing personal thus .My apologies .Thanks .Good night .Take care .Cheers .
You've done that often enough that I'm well aware of your instability.

Wrong diagnosis , Dr.

That's certainly no instability , just the fact that i cannot stand stubborn dogmatism in the face of evidence , especially not in science and especially not from a scientist such as yourself ,that's all .

You have been claiming all along that your materialistic "all is brain" or that "we are just our brains"  beliefs have been supported by empirical evidence ,  while the converse was true ,so : see Libet on the subject then.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg446748#msg446748 date=1418858503]
Sorry, Don, but repetitively quoting something I had carefully pointed out was obviously wrong, doesn't make it right.

Shall i then just take your word for  it above the expertise of those prominent physicists in question ?


Quote
We now have the capability to detect a single photon or particle with versions of the double-slit experiment. When we do so, it is in one place only. If we repeat the experiment, the next particle may turn out to be somewhere else. And when we do it lots of times, we get a distribution that looks exactly like the diffraction pattern of the wave function of a single particle. No problem: that is how nature works. I can't see why you get so excited by it.

Of course , no problem at all .No interpretation or measurement problem in QM at all ,silly me .
You're the only physicist who understands QM thus .Feynman was an idiot thus when he claimed that " I can safely say that nobody understands QM ..."

Thanks for your brilliant response ,Alan .
« Last Edit: 18/12/2014 18:29:19 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446746#msg446746 date=1418854874]
What i meant was/is :
You have (mis)interpreted them materialistically , i guess ,while they were so clear about what they were saying about classical realism ,classical determinism, and classical locality that have been challenged by QM and and by Bell's theorem and its related experiments ....Later , more 
More unevidenced assertion. By all means explain how I'm mistaken, or produce a reasoned argument

I thought my posted quotes on the subject were clear enough : they couldn't be more clearer .

Besides proving non-locality to occur as QM predicted , Bell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge the classical realism too as QM predicted also  ,classical realism in the sense that the measured objects do have their own properties that are independent of the fact of whether or not they are observed : the so-called objective reality out there is independent of any observation : realism was thus challenged too ( Will the moon be still there when you don't look at it,as Einstein jokingly said . ) .

The latter fact was by the way Einstein's "quantum demon " , in the sense that he could not bring himself to accept it , not to mention non-locality or "spooky action at a distance " as Einstein so derisively said , the EPR argument with Bohr was thus all about trying to prove that QM was incomplete ...in order to rescue realism and locality at least  .

Bell's theorem and its related experiments did thus prove Einstein to be wrong in all details, as Bell said , and Bohr to be right .

Quote
I won't hold my breath.

Please, stop using these kindda irritating remarks that do really  "push my buttons" , thanks .


 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446767#msg446767 date=1418908719]


11-QM had replaced the deterministic universe  of classical physics with the probabilistic one .

12-QM had replaced the causally closed universe of classical physics with the causally open one,or as Von Neumann proved through rigorous maths : a non-physical process is the one that might be collapsing the wave function via a non-mechanical causation : consciousness of the observer at the end of the measurement chain, since conscious observation has to be made at the end of that chain,after all  .

13-QM can never be understood without reference to the mind : the 2 major enigmas have been encountering  each other thus : consciousness and QM that are inseparable from each other .

14-QM had challenged locality and realism of classical physics, and had intoduced the limited notion of free will as well at the level of the measurements in QM ,as Bell's theorem and its related or stimulated experiments had proved  .

15-Bell's theorem and its related experiments corroborated the predictions of QM by challenging the classical realism :
The properties of the observed particles are NOT independent of their observation : the observed is not independent of the observer .

16-QM has already been proving the fact that any real progress in the scientific study of the physical universe  will be almost impossible without that in the study of consciousness ,since the former and the latter are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other .

Regarding 11-16:

I really didn’t ask for your 10 points in order to toss back at you the same criticisms I’ve made before. I was genuinely trying to piece together the logical steps in your own version of consciousness theory (as opposed to just materialism is false.)

I was also just genuinely trying to tell you about those points of mine too, that's all, Cheryl . Beware of false speculations then .

Don't imitate , innovate ,Cheryl .Don't imitate dlorde by reducing all my points to just "materialism is false " assertions . Our dlorde is the wrong guy or the wrong scientist to imitate ,since he can't let go of his cherished identity theory , to mention just that one , even in the face of evidence .

Quote
Considering how critical you are of gaps, there would seem to be a lot of them. Perhaps you can fill them in for me.

Your theory seems to go something like this:
An observation in quantum mechanics requires a conscious human to make a choice in what to measure, and become aware of the result in order to collapse the wavefunction. --->
Consciousness can collapse wave functions without measuring devices made up of physical material. Not only is an observation “not  just,” it does not even require physical interactions, interference by particles. Immaterial thoughts alone will have the same effect. --->

lol

Completely wrong : i did not say such non-sense  : your own misunderstanding of my own words thus .

Quote
Consciousness can collapse the wave functions in the brain without actually being aware that it is engaging in that the process.


Wrong again : your own misunderstanding of my words .


Quote
While Stapp used quantum effects mainly to explain how an unidentified conscious agency freely selects from a number of conscious choices,

Unidentified ? What are you talking about ? Did Stapp say that ?
Stapp talked about the mindful conscious aware maintained sustained volitional effort of attention that collapses certain brain states and hold them in place through the quantum Zeno effect and Hebb's law, grosso -modo thus  .
Stapp says that that happens at the level of calcium ions ...


Quote
Hammeroff says that somehow  these options may bubble up from the subconscious neural machinery, and consciousness selects from among them, which is not entirely different from Libet or any materialist theory,


The subconscious cannot be equated with your so-called neural "machinery " either  . The above does not really contradict Stapp's work on the subject anyway .Stapp does not say that consciousness "creates " those choices , possibilities , eventualities , probabilities or brain states out of nothing .

Quote
(other than materialists see the executive function as being generated by the structures like the prefrontal cortex)

Generated ? We have already talked about that : that's the  materialistic  identity theory false belief that's no scientific theory ,as Libet said .

Quote
.But with any of these scenarios, the process itself is subconscious, and it only becomes conscious after the results are in. That is, I am not aware of where to go looking for these ideas or options, how or when they first took up residence. I am not aware of this underlying quantum activity or its application, as if  I were perusing and selecting from my closet which shirt I am going to wear that day. I am unaware of these underlying interactions (quantum or conventional) or the location or generation of these choices. When I have a “tip of the tongue” experience, I do not know where to go looking for the celebrity name that I can’t recall or why it suddenly pops in my head 3 hours later.

You don't have to be aware of your brain activity , of the rest of your biology , to be able to function : you don't see your neurons doing what they do, you're not aware of that  .Stapp just tried to explain how things happen at the interface between the mind and its brain,at the level of calcium ions , others went even deeper or "lower " and placed the interface of the mind and its brain at the level of electrons ... .

Since we are made out of atoms , electrons ...,and since the whole universe , including ourselves thus , seem to be quantum "mechanical " , then neuroscientists have to let go of their classical assumptions regarding how the mind and brain work when studying them : materialist neuroscientists thus are still stuck within classical physics regarding the mind -body problem .

Classical physics that cannot account for the mind causal efficacy ,since classical physics is  both mechanical deterministic and also assume that the universe is causally closed , so the mind can have no causal efficacy on matter the brain body or on the rest of its environment , including on the physical reality , but QM says otherwise .

Furthermore, all those processes remain just "wave-like " possibilities , eventualities , probabilities ..waiting to be actualized by the very act of mindful conscious aware volitional effort of attention , the latter does not "create " them out of nothing , just chooses consciously what particular ones should be actualized through the volitional effort of attention and action = veto power : see above .


Quote
It would appear that Stapp and Hammeroff are replicating in their theory the set up of the interference experiment on a microscopic scale in the brain, as near as I can tell, even though the “choices” to be selected from (to measure or not measure) are manifestly conscious in the experiment, and the specific outcome is not actually controllable.

See above . You can hold in place whatever  brain states you choose to , but you can also decide to dismiss them for the "benefit " of others : you can decide to act upon them or not .You can choose to focus and act upon certain thoughts rather than on other ones : you can decide not only the outcome but you can also decide the direction of the outcome .

Quote
Or perhaps the above is not how your own theory works at all – that from your “consciousness collapses the wave function” assertion you  jump to the idea that consciousness is a kind of as yet undetected universal field,  that finds its way to my brain transceiver and controls me like a robot, but the real work of consciousness, all thought and deliberation, all subjective experience and qualia, etc occurs elsewhere though mechanisms that are unknown and undetected. Some aspect of this nonlocal consciousness is discrete and unique to “me” and no one else, separate from other biological robot's designated share of the universal consciousness.

Stapp's work is all about the fact that the mind of the observer is inseparable from the observed (QM showed that fact ) ,about the causal efficacy of the mind regarding its environment ,  from there he went on building the causal efficacy of the mindful conscious aware volitional effort of attention and action regarding the physical brain ,body and regarding the rest of the physical reality ,at the level of calcium ions through the Zeno effect and Hebb's law , once again .

Quote
That is quite a leap, and you haven’t actually presented any evidence from physicists, or even models from physicists who think the above might be true. If I’m confused about how your theory actually works, perhaps you could enlighten me and bridge those explanatory gaps.

What do you think i have done in that lengthy consciousness thread as well as in this thread by talking to you about Stapp's theory on the subject , about that of Schwartz that is based both on Stapp's work and on Libet's conscious mental field theory through the veto power . not to mention that Beauregard bases also his theories on Stapp's work , not to mention that the manifesto of this thread is based on Stapp's work and on those of other non-materialist scientists as well .

It's not that i  did not tell you about what  all those non-materialistic theories of consciousness were  all about , it is exactly the other way around : you either forgot about all those excerpts , other material and more ,or you just did not make the necessary effort to research about that .
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Don't imitate , innovate ,Cheryl .Don't imitate dlorde by reducing all my points to just "materialism is false " assertions .

No, that's pretty much the general consensus, not just dlorde.
Quote
It's not that i  did not tell you about what  all those non-materialistic theories of consciousness were  all about , it is exactly the other way around : you either forgot about all those excerpts , other material and more ,or you just did not make the necessary effort to research about that .


Hahahahaha. Yeah, Don, that's it. I just forgot how you explained your theory so well before.
« Last Edit: 18/12/2014 20:33:54 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg446747#msg446747 date=1418856484]
Cheryl :

You wanted 10 points .I will give you 20 .I am very generous ,so people say lol at least .

I will summarize my  20 points for you, regarding consciousness in its mutual interactions with its environment , including with the physical brain and with the rest of the physical reality , as follows :



As I anticipated, most of your points for your view of consciousness were variations of "materialism is false."

That 's not true , Cheryl :
Did the world's leading neuroscientists and philosophers such as Ben Libet , -Lord Adrian, Sir John Eccles, Herbert Jasper, Charles Phillips,Wilder Penfield, Roger Sperry, Frederic Bremer, Ragnar Granit, Anders Lundberg, Robert Doty, and Howard Shevrin, Thomas Nagel, Karl Popper , David Chalmers , John Searle and many others as well , did they not acknowledge the the non-physical nature of consciousness ??? ,for example ?
Did they not reject reductionist deterministic materialism ?
Did Libet ,for example , to mention just this one, not reject the materialistic monistic reductionist identity theory belief that's no scientific theory ?
Is this thread not all about a certain manifesto ?
I will leave it at then , for the time being at least . .

Quote
You reject mounds of evidence regarding neuroscience as mere correlation (or the "image" of the process), but are not bothered in the least by the dismal lack of direct evidence (or even well replicated correlations!) for psi, souls, life after death, psycho-kinesis, consciousness outside the brain, etc.


I don't reject no evidence . I just reject all the materialist theories of consciousness, simply because they reduce the latter to just brain activity .
The materialistic identity theory , for example, has been supported by a big zero evidence ,No wonder , simply because it is just a belief , no scientific theory .
The emergent property theory regarding consciousness has also been supported by a big zero empirical evidence, while the dualistic and idealistic theories of consciousness were /are the ones that make more scientific sense , despite their flaws .
The latter is pretty normal, since we are ,once again, still in the infancy stage regarding consciousness studies .
As for psi phenomena, near death experiences .....they have been delivering a lots of evidence  .that can only accounted for if we would assume that consciousness is a non-physical and a non-local process that's neither irreducible to brain activity , nor can it be an emergent property of the so-called evolutionary complexity of the physical brain .
Furthermore , biological evolution can also not account for , let alone explain,   consciousness ,simply because the latter is both irreducible to biology and can also not be an emergent property from biology  ..

If you want me to display for you all the evidence that has been delivered by psi research ...I would  be more than willing to deliver that .I would even provide you with all the refutations of all the material, physiological and psychological materialistic "explanations " (away ) of psi phenomena, near death experiences , placebo/nocebo effects and the rest .

But then again , once again , i am not really interested in psi phenomena ..

I do focus mostly on the mind -body hard problem, simply because there is nothing more important than that : all the rest is relatively just details , since consciousness is a key and central player in the universe , including in our own lives , without which there can even be no science , without which we cannot try to understand the universe or ourselves , or as William James used to say ,or in words to the same effect at least : all the erst would fade away in comparison with finding out about how we are able to be aware of ourselves and this universe .


Quote
You haven't convinced me that your amalgamation of quantum mechanics contributes anything to the understanding of consciousness itself, and it utterly fails to address any of the deficits you attributed to material explanation when you first began this thread.

See my prior reply to your post here above on the subject .
Since the whole universe ,including ourselves, seems to be quantum "mechanical " in the Von Neumannian sense where consciousness has a non-mechanical causal efficacy on the brain and on the rest of the physical reality , then scientists have to try to find out about how the mind works through its brain at the interface between mind and brain : neuroscientists must abandon classical physics in their attempts to study the brain mind relationship

Quote
Your particular brand of quantum woo is less of a means to describe any aspect of consciousness than it is an attempt to justify an irrational argument lacking evidence. If there is no determinism on any level, OR if consciousness is exempt from even probabilistic predictions, then one theory of consciousness is as valid as the next, equally likely, irrefutable, and simply a preference.

You just did not understand what i was saying .See my prior reply to your post here above on the subject .
Deterministic mechanical classical physics made no room for the causal efficacy of consciousness on the physical reality , needless to add : there is no way that consciousness can have any effects on the physical reality, including on its physical brain and body , if classical physics were not fundamentally false , and hence were not superseded by QM that had replaced the classical deterministic universe with the probabilistic one , replaced the causally close universe of classical physics with the causally open one , replaced classical locality with non-locality and challenged classical realism that asserted that the objective reality out there (the physical reality thus ) is independent of the observer = the latter is inseparable from the former as QM showed = taking into consideration all the above + LIbet's work regarding the mindful volitional veto power at least ,  consciousness can thus have causal effects on its physical brain and body as well as on the erst of its environment , including on the rest of the physical reality through the mind -brain interface as well as through extrasensory effects ....

Quote
It would be essentially the same argument if you proposed that because of indeterminacy in the universe, astrology, voo-doo, crystal healing, homeopathy, magic spells -anything at all - must all be considered equally valid phenomena, since there is no basis for any criteria for facts or beliefs.

Don't confuse potatoes with apples :
I am only interested in the brain -body problem , and in how the minds might work through the brain, how the mind has causal effects on the physical brain and on the erst of the physical reality ...

What materialistic science has been telling us thus about our minds , about the origin of life , the evolution of life , ....have to be revisited and questioned radically , simply because deterministic reductionist materialism that was built upon the approximately correct and fundamentally false classical physics is false, whether you like it or not
 .
Quote
Basically your strategy is, if you can't construct a rational argument, attack rationality itself, and assert that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, fool, etc.

You're just projecting , Cheryl :

What rationality are you talking about then ? What rationality is there , what empirical evidence is there that support the false materialistic conception of nature that has been equated with science = a big zero .

P.S.: I wonder why and i am extremely puzzled by the fact that you , guys , do see more value ,where there is none , in your own irrational materialistic beliefs than in the empirical evidence that has been contradicting them .How come ? Amazing .


 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Besides proving non-locality to occur as QM predicted , Bell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge the classical realism too as QM predicted also  ,classical realism in the sense that the measured objects do have their own properties that are independent of the fact of whether or not they are observed : the so-called objective reality out there is independent of any observation : realism was thus challenged too ( Will the moon be still there when you don't look at it,as Einstein jokingly said . ) .
Yes, we know. I've already addressed this, but I'll repeat it anyway.

Quantum mechanics (Quantum Field Theory) accounts for our material world.  It's the most precise and most tested theory we have ever had.

QFT and the experiments that physicists have done to test it, tells us that there are no unknown fields or forces that can interact significantly with humans or their brains - only gravity and electromagnetism are relevant.

You may not like it, but mother nature cares not a jot - she does what she does. The plain fact is, the quantum mechanics that you've been showing such enthusiasm for directly contradicts your 'immaterial consciousness' idea.

You might find that getting a better understanding of the empirical evidence about consciousness will help; this does require that you're prepared to change your mind according to the evidence. The first half of this paper, previously posted by Cheryl, gives a good summary of the current position: The Biological Function of Consciousness.

It's possible that some macro-scale QM effect may contribute to the generation of consciousness, as in optimizations found elsewhere in biology; but no convincing argument has yet been made that it's necessary, no plausible models have been proposed, and it seems unlikely given the short evolutionary timescale. Nevertheless, it's possible.

Quote
Quote
I won't hold my breath.
Please, stop using these kindda irritating remarks that do really  "push my buttons" , thanks .
Oh grow up.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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