0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I particularly liked the rubber hand experiment, made me think that virtual reality isn't too far away. have you guys seen this before?http://www.ted.com/talks/oliver_sacks_what_hallucination_reveals_about_our_minds?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=button__2014-11-22
Where do you all sit on the theories of the universe being virtual and that of the universe being intrinsically linked at a sub-atomic level?
I do suspect that somebody might have been sending me some malicious malware or trojans from this site : my pc crashed 3 times yesterday , 1 time tonight ,to mention just that .Not to mention that my pc webcam has been hacked and does not function anymore..... What's going on ?
Of course, a virus induced paranoia.
Quote from: Ethos_ Of course, a virus induced paranoia.Why do you think he's paranoid rather than his computer having a computer virus?
I do suspect that somebody might have been sending me some malicious malware or trojans from this site :What's going on ?
If you do have a computer-infection, ( rather than plain-old malfunction ) , the websites you downloaded pirated copies of eBooks from are a far more likely candidate than this one.
I've been reluctant to get drawn into the quantum mechanics part of the discussion because to me, Don has never clearly outlined how he gets from "consciousness collapses the wave function" to "the brain is a transceiver for immaterial nonlocal consciousness" - so what's the point of debating the interpretation of quantum mechanics for that end? His version of consciousness remains unexplained and attributeless, regardless. Never the less, because he brings it up over and over and insists that all the really important physicists accept his interpretation, I thought I'd post some interesting quotes from the article :Does Quantum Mechanics Require A Conscious Observer? by Michael Nauenberg, (a collaborator of Bell's.) The last quote is one of Bell's.
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg447012#msg447012 date=1419200516]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 21/12/2014 19:04:25 Cheryl :Both the identity theory and the emergent property theory regarding the origin function nature and emergence of consciousness have been supported by a big zero empirical evidence ,no wonder , so how can you assume then that biological evolution can account for consciousness , let alone explain it Consciousness can never arise from biology : that's the main issue in consciousness studies by the way, if you haven't noticed that yet .Looking for consciousness in the brain is no less an inexplicably magical futile attempt than assuming that biological evolution can give rise to consciousness.So how then do you know that the physicist making the observation in the QM experiment is conscious? Is it actually provable? Consciousness cannot arise from biology, according to you, so his biological status as a human being is irrelevant. You’re comfortable assuming the physicist is conscious because he demonstrates behavior consistent with consciousness, and he claims he is (although a computer could make the same claim) and he has the human neural correlates consistent with consciousness.
Cheryl :Both the identity theory and the emergent property theory regarding the origin function nature and emergence of consciousness have been supported by a big zero empirical evidence ,no wonder , so how can you assume then that biological evolution can account for consciousness , let alone explain it Consciousness can never arise from biology : that's the main issue in consciousness studies by the way, if you haven't noticed that yet .Looking for consciousness in the brain is no less an inexplicably magical futile attempt than assuming that biological evolution can give rise to consciousness.
Surely all those “rigorous maths” of Von Neumann you mentioned earlier that showed that consciousness is responsible for the collapse of the wavefunction would not hinge on a flimsy and unprovable assumption That doesn't sound rigorous to me. How is behavior and neural correlates irrelevant to the determination of consciousness if your entire QM consciousness theory ultimately rests on that very same assumption?! That is quite a pickle.
Believe me, I’ve often wondered if you were a turing test designed by Cooper to drive us crazy, but he denies it.
... basically the idea is that because there is this background radiation or energy, then it isn't so hard to believe that energy might be able to travel or bridge clear through to these other dimensions or planets (i say both because i think the people involved have already split into two opposing sides) sort of like electricity traveling through water. so anyway the relevant part is that sometimes on rare occasions people are somehow capable of absorbing this energy and even in certain minds correlating this energy as visions or dreams or some such thing and that maybe it is even possible that we are being fed that energy from an as of yet unknown source in the universe.
I've been reluctant to get drawn into the quantum mechanics part of the discussion because to me, Don has never clearly outlined how he gets from "consciousness collapses the wave function" to "the brain is a transceiver for immaterial nonlocal consciousness" - so what's the point of debating the interpretation of quantum mechanics for that end? His version of consciousness remains unexplained and attributeless, regardless. Never the less, because he brings it up over and over and insists that all the really important physicists accept his interpretation, I thought I'd post some interesting quotes from the article :Does Quantum Mechanics Require A Conscious Observer? by Michael Nauenberg, (a collaborator of Bell's.) The last quote is one of Bell's. "Abstract:The view that the implementation of the principles of quantum mechanics requires a conscious observer is based on misconceptions that are described in this article."http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness139.htmlRichard P. Feynman (Nobel Prize, 1965): Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not (Feynman et al., 1965). Murray Gellmann (Nobel Prize, 1969): The universe presumably couldn't care less whether human beings evolved on some obscure planet to study its history; it goes on obeying the quantum mechanical laws of physics irrespective of observation by physicists (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, 156). Anthony J. Leggett (Nobel Prize 2003): It may be somewhat dangerous to explain something one does not understand very well [the quantum measurement process] by invoking something [consciousness] one does not understand at all! (Leggett, 1991). John A. Wheeler: Caution: "Consciousness" has nothing whatsover to do with the quantum process. We are dealing with an event that makes itself known by an irreversible act of amplification, by an indelible record, an act of registration. Does that record subsequently enter into the "consciousness" of some person, some animal or some computer? Is that the first step into translating the measurement into "meaning" meaning regarded as "the joint product of all the evidence that is available to those who communicate." Then that is a separate part of the story, important but not to be confused with "quantum phenomena." (Wheeler, 1983). John S. Bell: From some popular presentations the general public could get the impression that the very existence of the cosmos depends on our being here to observe the observables. I do not know that this is wrong. I am inclined to hope that we are indeed that important. But I see no evidence that it is so in the success of contemporary quantum theory. So I think that it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics. Or that `information' is the real stuff of physical theory. It seems to me irresponsible to suggest that technical features of contemporary theory were anticipated by the saints of ancient religions... by introspection. The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences. Of course this apparatus, in laboratory experiments, is chosen and adjusted by the experiments. In this sense the outcomes of experiments are indeed dependent on the mental process of the experimenters! But once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference - according to ordinary quantum mechanics - whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such 'observing' to computers, (Bell, 1984). Nico van Kampem: Whoever endows with more meaning than is needed for computing observable phenomena is responsible for the consequences. (van Kampen, 1988).
Well, you should try to refute my earlier quotes and excerpts on the subject , instead of posting others that say somethingelse .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 22/12/2014 18:20:12Well, you should try to refute my earlier quotes and excerpts on the subject , instead of posting others that say somethingelse .Good grief, that's rich coming from someone who's sole technique is based on posting other people's work. Pots & kettles come to mind.
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447013#msg447013 date=1419201241]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 21/12/2014 17:27:25Quote author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446938#msg446938 date=1419111719]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 20/12/2014 19:32:40Only the modern substance dualism and idealist monism are consistent with QM , and can thus remain in the competition regarding the possible theories of consciousness .Materialism and property dualism ( the latter is just yet another paradoxical form of materialism and panpsychism in disguise thus ) ,for example , are incompatible with QM that has been encountering consciousness.No; not even wrong. Can you elaborate on that ? , please , thanks .Already done earlier in the thread.
Quote author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446938#msg446938 date=1419111719]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 20/12/2014 19:32:40Only the modern substance dualism and idealist monism are consistent with QM , and can thus remain in the competition regarding the possible theories of consciousness .Materialism and property dualism ( the latter is just yet another paradoxical form of materialism and panpsychism in disguise thus ) ,for example , are incompatible with QM that has been encountering consciousness.No; not even wrong. Can you elaborate on that ? , please , thanks .
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg446938#msg446938 date=1419111719]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 20/12/2014 19:32:40Only the modern substance dualism and idealist monism are consistent with QM , and can thus remain in the competition regarding the possible theories of consciousness .Materialism and property dualism ( the latter is just yet another paradoxical form of materialism and panpsychism in disguise thus ) ,for example , are incompatible with QM that has been encountering consciousness.No; not even wrong
Only the modern substance dualism and idealist monism are consistent with QM , and can thus remain in the competition regarding the possible theories of consciousness .Materialism and property dualism ( the latter is just yet another paradoxical form of materialism and panpsychism in disguise thus ) ,for example , are incompatible with QM that has been encountering consciousness.
QuoteThe materialistic so-called standard model of quantum field theory has to be thus approximately correct and fundamentally false...QFT is not a description of reality, it's a model. It's a good model because it works. Without it, you wouldn't have the processor or storage in your computer, or LEDs, etc. When it stops making astonishingly accurate predictions about the real world, it'll be time to refine it or replace it.
The materialistic so-called standard model of quantum field theory has to be thus approximately correct and fundamentally false...
Even dlorde and alancalverd could say nothing intelligent about the following , let alone try to refute it ,despite my repetitive posting of the following ,on many occasions : Here you go again thus : 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 .
.. there is no separate consciousness and separate physical reality : they are inseparable...