Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Kartazion on 12/03/2022 13:55:26
-
Better talk about conscience. Consciousness exists. The question is asked whether consciousness acts on matter, and it is legit.
-
@talanum1 apparently they all pretend not to understand this Quantum mind theory which does exist. The question now is to wonder why they pretend not to understand.
Quantum consciousness or Quantum mind is a hypothesis that suggests that quantum phenomena, such as the entanglement and superposition of states, are involved in the functioning of the brain and in particular, in the emergence of consciousness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind by David Bohm ; Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff ; Umezawa, Vitiello, Freeman ; Karl Pribram ; Henry Stapp ; David Pearce
-
The question is asked whether consciousness acts on matter, and it is legit.
Edit: Initial response deleted.
This is actually a hijack of the thread (even if the thread is absurd) so I deleted my response.
-
@talanum1 apparently they all pretend not to understand this Quantum mind theory which does exist. The question now is to wonder why they pretend not to understand.
No one is pretending anything.
These are not theories, as each of the people mentioned will admit. They are hypothetical speculations, which do not make predictions that can be tested by experimentation neither are they based on empirical evidence. Hence quantum mind theory does not exist.
-
Hence quantum mind theory does not exist.
You cannot say and assert that it does not exist at all. At least it's debatable. Or do you have a source of this non-existence?
Is Brain-Mind Quantum? A theory and supporting evidence https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.01538
Quantum information theoretic approach to the mind-brain problem https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.07836
What Is Consciousness? Artificial Intelligence, Real Intelligence, Quantum Mind, And Qualia https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.15515
-
The question is asked whether consciousness acts on matter, and it is legit.
Edit: Initial response deleted.
This is actually a hijack of the thread (even if the thread is absurd) so I deleted my response.
Hijack? Look what he writes:
The soul causes new thoughts, so whether the momentum starts in ions in the brain or in the soul, since the soul starts new mental processes, it creates momentum from nothing.
God starts the program in babies. He says: "live" and then the mind boots up.
I think pointed this person on at least something questionable with the quantum mind.
-
Hence quantum mind theory does not exist.
You cannot say and assert that it does not exist at all.
I am saying that a scientific theory does not exist.
I assume you know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothetical speculation.
-
I am saying that a scientific theory does not exist.
I assume you know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothetical speculation.
You are weird. A theory is a well confirmed explanation for observed facts, and a New Experiments Show Consciousness Affects Matter.
-
I am saying that a scientific theory does not exist.
Ultimately what we need is a satisfying scientific theory of consciousness that predicts under which conditions any particular physical system - Source: Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05097-x
Do you still confirm that a theory of it does not exist, or is it debatable?
-
I am saying that a scientific theory does not exist.
I assume you know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothetical speculation.
You are weird. A theory is a well confirmed explanation for observed facts, and a New Experiments Show Consciousness Affects Matter.
That effect doesn't need consciousness.
In general, humans take about 10 to 1000 ms to become aware of something; we are a bit slow.
By that time, the experiment is over.
So consciousness isn't the factor that induces the change in outcome.
The fact of measurement- a physical change to the experiment- is what affects the outcome.
-
I am saying that a scientific theory does not exist.
Ultimately what we need is a satisfying scientific theory of consciousness that predicts under which conditions any particular physical system - Source: Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05097-x
Do you still confirm that a theory of it does not exist, or is it debatable?
As the nature article says.
We still do not have any such theory.
-
So consciousness isn't the factor that induces the change in outcome.
That's not what they say in the video.
As the nature article says.
We still do not have any such theory.
As the nature article says: Fierce debates have arisen around the two most popular theories of consciousness. One is the global neuronal workspace (GNW) by psychologist Bernard J. Baars and neuroscientists Stanislas Dehaene and Jean-Pierre Changeux. - Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05097-x
-
That's not what they say in the video.
How does the video address reaction times?
-
How does the video address reaction times?
Like an illusion.
Eg. According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton’s picture of a universally ticking clock. - Source: Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04558-7
-
I am saying that a scientific theory does not exist.
I assume you know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothetical speculation.
You are weird. A theory is a well confirmed explanation for observed facts, and a New Experiments Show Consciousness Affects Matter.
Why don't you start your own thread instead of hijacking talanum1's thread? This thread is about talanum1's fantasy.
-
How does the video address reaction times?
Like an illusion.
Eg. According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is illusory, including Isaac Newton’s picture of a universally ticking clock. - Source: Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04558-7
But consciousness is intimately related with time; if time doesn't exist, nor does consciousness.
So you still have to explain how the experiment is influenced by consciousness when the human reactions are so slow that the light could have bounced around the apparatus a billion times before anyone was conscious of any outcome.
-
Why don't you start your own thread instead of hijacking talanum1's thread? This thread is about talanum1's fantasy.
You should be right but... typically, people only have one midden.
-
But consciousness is intimately related with time; if time doesn't exist, nor does consciousness.
Doesn't exist? Who says it doesn't exist? You invent.
So you still have to explain how the experiment is influenced by consciousness when the human reactions are so slow that the light could have bounced around the apparatus a billion times before anyone was conscious of any outcome.
Subscribe to nature.
-
Who says it doesn't exist?
You.
Like an illusion.
Eg. According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: our naive perception of its flow doesn’t correspond to physical reality.
-
Subscribe to nature.
If that's the best you can do as an approach to backing up your views then you should probably stop posting.
It looks a lot like you are unable to answer the question.
-
Who says it doesn't exist?
You.
This is the Nature post that said so. Stop talking nonsense.
If that's the best you can do as an approach to backing up your views then you should probably stop posting.
It looks a lot like you are unable to answer the question.
Nothing to do with the OP.
-
This is the Nature post that said so.
The Journal, Nature, does not post here.
You do.
So you said it.
Nothing to do with the OP.
So, you admit that you are hijacking the thread.
-
It is a great question and one that I've "thought" about for many years. I will take it one step further, thought itself is matter. What fires between the synapses of our brains is matter itself. I take comfort in this theory. If thought itself is matter, and matter cannot be created or destroyed, then what fires between our synapses has been here since the start and will remain forever. Conscious thought existing as matter itself can act on matter around it.
The Boltzmann Theory of Brains is a great starting point to justify that thought itself is matter.
-
If thought itself is matter, and matter cannot be created or destroyed
That is not correct. It is known that matter can be created from high energy photons.
Conscious thought existing as matter itself can act on matter around it.
Thoughts are not matter.
-
In a way one could argue that thought while not material per se, is a material process, namely the exchange of glutamate(largely) between individual neurons. However it is very difficult, if not impossible to explain consciousness by a physical process, Consciousness is a mystery and it's hard to formulate the right question to interrogate it due to it being a subjective function. In a trivial sense consciousness can influence matter: my consciousness decides to lift my right arm and "magically" it rises. I am more inclined to believe that the op was thinking of telekinesis or some similar mumbo-jumbo woo for which the answer is NO.
-
You are weird. A theory is a well confirmed explanation for observed facts, and a New Experiments Show Consciousness Affects Matter.
Thank you for your link to the video of the conference where the experimental team explain how they have prooved (many years of very impressiv tests) that someone can act on some quantum phenomenon if he try do do so..
I was already aware of this fact, but it is great to know that this could be prooved using real science.
Now, in my opinion, this do not exactly mean that some "consciousness" is involved in the process.
First we dont really know what consciousness is, so using it (this concept) as if it would be the cause of the action seems not to be very accurate.
Perhaps, if some person is not conscious he can change some physical phenomenon too.
So... this could perhaps be some good start to understand what conciousness could be.
-
and a New Experiments Show Consciousness Affects Matter.
This is pretty trivial to demonstrate, even without all the superfluous capitalized words.
If consciousness could not affect matter, then you'd not be able to type a description about it. That was trivial, not requiring '(many years of very impressiv tests)' at all.
team explain how they have prooved (many years of very impressiv tests) that someone can act on some quantum phenomenon
Likewise, if I observe a normal distribution of light in an experiment, I paint my house one color, but if I observe an interference pattern (a quantum phonomenon), then I paint the house in stripes. I have thus acted on some quantum phenomenon, and it again didn't require 'very impressiv tests'.
So perhaps nobody is being clear as to what extraordinary thing is actually being done beyond what I've described above.
-
yes, but you omit to specify the detail of the experience.
People who where acting upon some physical pheomenon could be any where on earth.
There is no change with distance.
And the physical phenomenon that is involved is some double slit experience (or one slit experience and it works as well).
This mean, the people can change the result of the quantic experiment (making the wave function collapse !), only by thinking about it, elsewere on earth, as if some experimentator would direct interact with the phenomenon at the place of the experience.
-
This mean, the people can change the result of the quantic experiment (making the wave function collapse !), only by thinking about it, elsewere on earth, as if some experimentator would direct interact with the phenomenon at the place of the experience.
This is incorrect. What you are describing is magic and magic is not real.
-
It must be correct because this is what the experiences they did have shown.
If you dont agree with this, this is perhaps because you dident even watch the video.
Now, concerning the cause and the experiences they should do to confirm some or other hypothesis, this need some further questioning.
Per example, the peoples who are "at any distance" from the double slit experience receive (almost) real time feedback from the experience and therefore they know if they succeed or not at every moment.
So you probably dont be able to interact with some distant phenomenon... if you dont have some feedback. And this is what some further experience should investigate.
-
It must be correct because this is what the experiences they did have shown.
False. You can show I am wrong by supplying a source that has an experiment that shows thinking can affect the outcome of an experiment. A random YouTube video is not evidence.
-
This mean, the people can change the result of the quantic experiment (making the wave function collapse !), only by thinking about it, elsewere on earth, as if some experimentator would direct interact with the phenomenon at the place of the experience.
This is just decoherence, the effect of which travels at a good percentage of light speed. If it was 'caused' by some specific distant guy thinking about it, then they must have been able to show that the same system would remain in superposition (not collapsed) indefinitely if this one distant guy was not thinking about it. They've demonstrated no such thing.
There are plenty of examples of systems actually kept in superposition for extended times, despite the system being thought about continuously by the people setting up the experiments.
No, I have not watched the video. You-tube videos are not evidence of anything. If you haven't posted the actual claim here, then it isn't important enough to discuss.
-
And the physical phenomenon that is involved is some double slit experience (or one slit experience and it works as well).
I need to correct what i have writen.
This is not a one slit experience but one photon double slit experience, or course.
This is incorrect. What you are describing is magic and magic is not real.
So every time we discover some new thing using some exprimental method, it must be incorrect,
And because you dont want to admit the fact it is magic ?
This is just decoherence, the effect of which travels at a good percentage of light speed. If it was 'caused' by some specific distant guy thinking about it, then they must have been able to show that the same system would remain in superposition (not collapsed) indefinitely if this one distant guy was not thinking about it. They've demonstrated no such thing.
I think you say this because you have not see the video.
They have taken in account this kind of artefact (and a lot more. If you watch the video you will see).
Per example, they have used some "robots", doing the same as the human (so there is no robot at all... but no human also). Here, no collapse.
And, they have done some random start of the experience, to avoid some cyclic occurence of some unknown phenomenon.
There are plenty of examples of systems actually kept in superposition for extended times, despite the system being thought about continuously by the people setting up the experiments.
You are right.
Therefore, here, there must be something else to be taken in account... because it act differently.
In my opinion, it is very surprising that we had to wait around 100 years (double slit experience, with collapse when an observer retrieve the information where the photon pass by) to do such very basic experience.
No, I have not watched the video. You-tube videos are not evidence of anything. If you haven't posted the actual claim here, then it isn't important enough to discuss.
This is not only a "youtube video".
It is some video made by the scientists (center for consiousness studies) who are experimenting since 8 years at the University of Arizona.
-
So every time we discover some new thing using some exprimental method, it must be incorrect,
And because you dont want to admit the fact it is magic ?
What are you talking about?
-
Are there any peer-reviewed articles written about these experiments?
-
What are you talking about?
I say that you are talking about "magic" like if this would disqualify this sort of phenomenon to be studied by scientists.
Every phenomenon is some kind of magic before science deal with it !
Until some rational explaination occur.
A lot of things look like magic (actualy the QM is some kind of magic because the underlying cause remain a mystery).
You can observe that this kind of "magic" is fully accepted by modern scientists.
Why then do you want to discard an other "magical event", not even really understand, occuring in QM, just because the human observer is in that case specificaly involved ? (the scientists think that it is the humain consciousness that is responsible of the collapse... not sure but experiences can be done to demonstrate this fact or not) .
So, you can say : It is magic (i dont think magic exists, only miracles but it is some particular phenomenon) or you agree that the fact is real (scientists have discovered something) or... you state that those scientists are crooks.
I dont think these scientists are crooks (they act like real scientists in my opinion)
You can have some other opinion too and of course i respect your point of view.
-
Are there any peer-reviewed articles written about these experiments?
I dont know, but it looks like you have acces to theirs studies (and some other scientist is working "anonymous" in Brazil, anonymous because you know... we are here dealing with magic...)
If nobody accept their studies, it only means that actual science is ill (or for other reason but we dont know).
-
Again, a bit messy and certainly subjective since I'm my own source, this is true for all talking about consciousness or awareness.
The things like the double slit experiment suggest that "yes".
Or something else was a big miss or that observation does affect the outcome.
Not the overall outcome but only the observed ones, which points more to "causality" it's the thing submitted and ultimately "changed/affect" based on observation, meaning ONLY that:
Based on our current knowledge, we by observing holding a wrong understanding of the information are doomed to "observed it wrong".
This we opted on the considering of "simultaneously" creating a temporary branch that we hope will erase itself as the information adds up.
On the other hand we may be "paradoxical", not our bodies but our brains.
We have a cell giving rise for a neurone.
Each neurones naturally used/understands electricity and charge and obviously all the other aspects of nature/the laws, still it has no consciousness besides the one of the "thing/instructions " which formed it.
Either way, nothing special, chemical reactions to fire up energy and do things with that.
The "catch" may be when something/someone has too many of there neurones.
The higher the number the greatest the the "perhaps " becomes.
One cannot surpass the cosmological limit C.
Though what happens when you have quadrillions of neurons firing electrons at once?
Can't be that describled as a "potential paradox" on their sum?
1+1=1
Though thousands+ thousands= More?
At least for abstract thinking.
Considering that, on a virtual way, speed of thought surpasses the cosmological limit.
The ways in which "we cannot" freely abuse the fundamental laws of a universe which supposedly doesn't know we are observing, even if on a punny scale, seems completely"odd".
Why would from all the endless potential outcomes that we simple can't do anything that would truly be considered"for us regardless of the universe" THE THING.
Universe doesn't know I'm looking or even here, why not something that was unpredictable to happen as life can't abuse it?
Only reasonable explanation of what is that life and consciousness were in the table from the start, if that's true, or our universe it's made to generate life, or "something " here came from another universe with the odds of a rock passing untouched trough a black hole like event.
The first seems more unlikely.
I don't truly believe any of that, but needs to be considered:
We create the casualty by our own limited observation, and subsequently we use math to explain the casualty we created in the first place.
As numbers are real and could not couple with universal scales, formulas based on "abstract numbers" came to place and seemed to explain beyond casualty.
Only way to verify what is causing something observe it's to deliberately cause the sane effect and observe it, still re-creating the casualty not the effect.
The physical "the sane" was reproduced, yet on quantum can't be seen as in macro scale, for that we again arrived to the branch that something is in multiple times and places at once.
Consciousness it's more of a problem, that's why inanimate machines are better at this part.
Still, speed of thought trough an absurd number of neurones firing at once and processing at once, can be described as something "potentially paradoxal" and problematic, therefore must have being taken in to account from the start, as anything that could potentially break the laws seems to be or have being limited or erased from the "natural occurrence".
We must be very carefully with "artificial occurrence" ideas executed and born from brains that "may be not accounted for" as the godless/unconscious universe states.
If we, consious observers were by chance not accounted in the first place, we can literally create a paradox regardless of causality at some point.
Perhaps it's on itself a potential reason of why we seem to be alone out there.
By the moment you artificially do something causality wasn't prepared for it might create a paradox or chain reaction.
On the other hand if there's a consciousness of it's own on the quantum level, we shouldn't be worry as causality would always assure anything "can't this or that" which seems to be the case since ever.
If "we can't break anything" only diverge or exploit on a moderate scale, it's logically feasible to assume "universe knows".
Actually when we stated that something "can't" something we are describing immutable fixed laws, which on itself it's to say: Tuned universe.
Therefore it must know we would be here as we do, born from quantum mechanics, exploiting relativity but very limited when to exploit our own roots.
Not going sify, just comparing consciousness as DNA instructions, observation of our DNA would allow us to alter it naturally, such observation always comes from quantum mechanics.
DNA knows what the body needs based on the environment and fixes it trough time, there's a appealing consideration that our brains evolved as we started to look up and inside rather than to the ground, as if we were preparing ourselves for "space".
A few like Newton, Einstein, Galileo and others seems to have developed the means to it naturally rather than artificially.
For Einstein despise his math it looked like an open book.
Relativity seems more like "language" a more practical way to pass on information than a simplistic state of consciousness was able to trough DNA.
Then machines, computers and on and on.
Not out of the blue or from merely a few years, but more like the "sum" of a lot of DNA evolution finding it's way to do what it was originally wishing to do subconsciously for millions of years.
If universe has a consciousness of it's own, it's usually disconsidering or rejected based on what it states: Freewill "only within" a certain point.
We don't know because we don't have the knowledge yet, and as long as that's true casualty will be there to prevent us from seen it.
Sounds silly and yet absolutely true:
We don't understand because we are not yet supposed to, prevented to know by our selves l.
All that and yet: Why is there a universe in the first place? Why is it?
Of course simulated humans would have the same conclusion about everything just like us.
-
Hi.
I read most of what was written just above. It says quite a lot of stuff BUT none of it seems to be useful. It doesn't make any predictions or suggest something that can or should be tested. Science is less concerned about why or what some ultimate truth might be and more concerned with having an explanation and a model that is useful for making predictions.
Best Wishes.
-
Hi.
I read most of what was written just above. It says quite a lot of stuff BUT none of it seems to be useful. It doesn't make any predictions or suggest something that can or should be tested. Science is less concerned about why or what some ultimate truth might be and more concerned with having an explanation and a model that is useful for making predictions.
Best Wishes.
I like you.
Then again: Can conscious thought act on matter?
What do you expected? 😂
Proof? Ok.
My brain thinks.
My brain move my hands.
My hands shape a ball made of Clay.
There's the proof, as ordinary as it may sound.
If the question is regarding a potential "power" over matter by existing within it inside an environment ? No.
The only thing consciousness might and very likely is interfering it's with spectrum and light.
And that only when we see, so no again.
No for the actions over matter, and yes for the potential into it.
Even if a highly ultimate technology, would comunicante trough physical means.
There a wire or even light it's not different from my hands.
-
Science is less concerned about why or what some ultimate truth might be and more concerned with having an explanation and a model that is useful for making predictions.
What does science say that can be used to answer the question in the op?
-
Even if a highly ultimate technology, would comunicante trough physical means.
There a wire or even light it's not different from my hands.
We usually call them interfaces. They can be biological neurons, implanted electrodes, or non-invasive brain wave sensors.
Currently, humans can affect matter on Mars, because we have the necessary interfaces and actuators.
-
What does science say
It usually says "Please specify exactly what the question means".
-
Then again: Can conscious thought act on matter?
What do you expected? 😂
Proof? Ok.
My brain thinks.
My brain move my hands.
My hands shape a ball made of Clay.
The clay wasn't necessary. The hands moved. That's enough to illustrate the point. I totally agree. The question was asked in a classical manner, and that's a classical answer.
So the question now is, what's all the fuss? Who would deny that?
-
So the question now is, what's all the fuss? Who would deny that?
It seems that some people are convinced that consciousness can have effects on matter without physical interface which can be analyzed, modeled, and manipulated. This would make consciousness looks magical. But that's how magic tricks are usually done. Show audiences the beginning and the end of a process while hiding something in between. Some misdirections can amplify the effects of mythical confusions.
-
The clay wasn't necessary. The hands moved. That's enough to illustrate the point. I totally agree. The question was asked in a classical manner, and that's a classical answer.
So the question now is, what's all the fuss? Who would deny that?
And the hand is not accurate too.
Here, we are talking about something else : Wave function collapse.
In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse occurs when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—reduces to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an observation, and is the essence of a measurement in quantum mechanics, which connects the wave function with classical observables such as position and momentum. Collapse is one of the two processes by which quantum systems evolve in time; the other is the continuous evolution governed by the Schrödinger equation.[1] Collapse is a black box for a thermodynamically irreversible interaction with a classical environment.[2][3]
Calculations of quantum decoherence show that when a quantum system interacts with the environment, the superpositions apparently reduce to mixtures of classical alternatives. Significantly, the combined wave function of the system and environment continue to obey the Schrödinger equation throughout this apparent collapse.[4] More importantly, this is not enough to explain actual wave function collapse, as decoherence does not reduce it to a single eigenstate.[2][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
So, how somebody can interact from any point of the earth to make a wave collapse ????!!!!!!
-
Actually the clay was necessary as the body is related with the consciousness.
Rejecting the shaping of the clay ball is to reduce consciousness down to a single cell firing electrons.
The ability to make a ball of clay it's necessary for it to act over matter.
The hands moving by command should be enough, only that the vessel it's part of the whole.
Also would raise the spiritual problem as it can't yet to be confirmed.
By splitting consciousness from it's shell, the body, it's to say that consciousness it's recieves rather than developed.
If consciousness it's developed by the brain, the hands are part of the network and can't be neglected.
Proof of that people with amputated limbs do still feel they moving normally by command.
The other question now it's:
Should the human body to be considered as "interface"?
Given it's never truly "bound" to its environment makes wonder.
A radio signal, receptor and sender have a specific function.
But the body doesn't seem to be "made" to see the smallest, that can cause some mess with the particles, as a glitch if it's a consious system it's observing.
-
" Can conscious thought act on matter?"
If it didn't, we wouldn't know it existed (other than our own).