0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 27/10/2014 16:34:53According 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-biologyWhere 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.
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
Cheryl : Enjoy : http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/theory.htmlTheoretical 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.
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 ?
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 ?
< 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.
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg443274#msg443274 date=1414518392]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 28/10/2014 17:36:31I 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.
QuoteBy 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?
Quote from: cheryl j on 28/10/2014 17:43:42< 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?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 27/10/2014 19:32:03Quote from: cheryl j on 27/10/2014 19:00:15Quote from: DonQuichotte on 27/10/2014 18:25:17Intent , 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.
Quote from: cheryl j on 27/10/2014 19:00:15Quote from: DonQuichotte on 27/10/2014 18:25:17Intent , 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 .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 27/10/2014 18:25:17Intent , 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.
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 ...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 27/10/2014 16:41:24What 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.
What do you have to say about this other scientific bombshell ?
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.
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.
Quote from: alancalverd on 27/10/2014 23:12:21... 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.
... 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.
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 .
... can you replicate ... some experiments of PEAR ?dlorde : Can you do the latter at least ?
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 ...
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