0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Consciousness:Some of Stapp's work concerns the implications of quantum mechanics for consciousness.Stapp favors the idea that quantum wave functions collapse only when they interact with consciousness as a consequence of "orthodox" quantum mechanics. He argues that quantum wave functions collapse when conscious minds select one among the alternative quantum possibilities.[6]His hypothesis of how mind may interact with matter via quantum processes in the brain differs from that of Penrose and Hameroff. While they postulate quantum computing in the microtubules in brain neurons, Stapp postulates a more global collapse, a 'mind like' wave-function collapse that exploits certain aspects of the quantum Zeno effect within the synapses. Stapp's view of the neural correlate of attention is explained in his book, Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer (2007).[7]In this book he also credits John Von Neumann's Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1955, 1932) with providing an "orthodox" quantum mechanics demonstrating mathematically the essential role of quantum physics in the mind.Wikipedia .
Since materialism is false , then those experiments and other ones must be explained in non-materialist ways , if they happened / happen to be flawless at least .
Since materialism is false , thanks to consciousness mainly , then the latter must be non-physical or non-material, since not 'all is matter " .
Consciousness that cannot have arisen from just physics and chemistry , no way .
When are you gonna be able to get this simple fact then ?How can the subjective qualitative qualia "emerge or rise ' from neuro-chemistry , from matter , via some sort of magical materialist metaphysical 'computation or emergence property trick " , since consciousness is totally different from its alleged original neural components it allegedly 'emerged " from : it's a total form of lunacy to assume that consciousness can rise or emerge from the physical brain activity...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 14/12/2013 19:39:21Since materialism is false , then those experiments and other ones must be explained in non-materialist ways , if they happened / happen to be flawless at least .It is your logic that is flawed, not the experiments. The truth or falsity of materialism has no bearing on whether some unexplained phenomenon has a material explanation. QuoteSince materialism is false , thanks to consciousness mainly , then the latter must be non-physical or non-material, since not 'all is matter " .The flaws in that circular logic have already been explained.QuoteConsciousness that cannot have arisen from just physics and chemistry , no way .Argument from incredulity.QuoteWhen are you gonna be able to get this simple fact then ?How can the subjective qualitative qualia "emerge or rise ' from neuro-chemistry , from matter , via some sort of magical materialist metaphysical 'computation or emergence property trick " , since consciousness is totally different from its alleged original neural components it allegedly 'emerged " from : it's a total form of lunacy to assume that consciousness can rise or emerge from the physical brain activity...Common sense fallacy. The interacting patterns of cellular automata are totally different from the grid of cells they emerge from; nevertheless they can emulate universal computing machines.
You know what ?:I think it would be much much much better for me to go breath and smell the extermely reviving , fascinating and inspiring fresh air of Henry P.Stapp , instead of continuing to be hanging in this suffocating materialist dark sterile dead materialist impotent nest here ,while wasting my time and energy in the process,on deaf and blind robots such as yourselves .
So, i am not interested in your absurd crap, sorry ,thanks anyway .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/12/2013 17:30:29So, i am not interested in your absurd crap, sorry ,thanks anyway .You must be in the wrong forum.
Quantum mechanics might be the key to solving the mystery of consciousness , relatively speaking thus .Who knows ? Henry P.Stapp here above might be on the right track in that regard at least ,who knows ?
From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe... Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device... Our bodies and brains thus become...parts of the quantum mechanically described physical universe. Treating the entire physical universe in this unified way provides a conceptually simple and logically coherent theoretical foundation...
Folks:I am a bit pissed off today , so, i will just say the following ,for the time being at least :
Quote from: cheryl j on 14/12/2013 20:26:14Quote from: DonQuichotte on 14/12/2013 19:34:00I am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine : i just do not impose it as "the scientific world view ", as materialism has been doing to all sciences for that matter , by imposing its materialist false conception of nature , as the 'scientific world view ".Non-materialists views of the world are unfalsifiable = unscientific , as materialism is by the way , but that does not mean they are all necessarily false , as materialism is .What is the difference between religious dualism and the scientific kind? What specific properties do they share, or what is a property one has that the other does not have?What are you talking about ? what scientific kind ? what do you mean exactly ?Science has been materialist ,since the 19th century at least , remember .I don't get what you were trying to say .Can you be more specific, please ?P.S.: I am a dualist period , leave that "religious " out of it then .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 14/12/2013 19:34:00I am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine : i just do not impose it as "the scientific world view ", as materialism has been doing to all sciences for that matter , by imposing its materialist false conception of nature , as the 'scientific world view ".Non-materialists views of the world are unfalsifiable = unscientific , as materialism is by the way , but that does not mean they are all necessarily false , as materialism is .What is the difference between religious dualism and the scientific kind? What specific properties do they share, or what is a property one has that the other does not have?
I am entiteld to hold that opinion or belief of mine : i just do not impose it as "the scientific world view ", as materialism has been doing to all sciences for that matter , by imposing its materialist false conception of nature , as the 'scientific world view ".Non-materialists views of the world are unfalsifiable = unscientific , as materialism is by the way , but that does not mean they are all necessarily false , as materialism is .
... You may not like the article, because it is somewhat critical, but it does mention some changes Stapps made to his theory. http://web.archive.org/web/20060623070312/http://individual.utoronto.ca/dbourget/download/QLPM.pdf
It's a lot of unnecessary effort based on trying to accommodate an incoherent concept of free will. If one simply accepts that the brain already contains all the information necessary to process and generate an outcome compatible with our desires, wishes, predilections, etc., and that these desires, wishes, predilections, etc., are encoded in the brain as a result of a lifetime of development and interaction with the environment, personal experiences, etc., to make us who and what we are, these problems go away.