0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447196#msg447196 date=1419374170]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 23/12/2014 17:27:16You were completely wrong about Carter's earlier understanding of Popper's world 3 theory : see below and more + Popper and Eccles argued for the existence of a separate soul whose interactions with matter do not obey any laws of physics in their co-authored book " The self and its brain " :It's a matter of timing and interpretation; Popper's 'Three Worlds' hierarchy was a model of emergent property interactionalism, where World 2 & 3 emerged from the physical world (World 3 via World 2) and influenced it via top-down causal interaction (which, as we discussed earlier, is a more readily accessible view of the bottom-up complexities behind emergent properties). His collaboration with Eccles resulted in a subtle and somewhat controversial development of their views - Eccles didn't believe the mind or consciousness was non-physical, but of a different world, which changed the ontological emphasis of Popper's World 2; this move away from emergent property interactionalism to a more literal 'other world' dualism was criticised, not least by Feyerabend, who noted that top-down causal influence by mental abstractions on the physical, clearly doesn't necessarily imply they are ontologically distinct, and that none of Popper's arguments for the autonomy of such abstract objects determined them to be irreducible in terms of mental or physical states and processes.
You were completely wrong about Carter's earlier understanding of Popper's world 3 theory : see below and more + Popper and Eccles argued for the existence of a separate soul whose interactions with matter do not obey any laws of physics in their co-authored book " The self and its brain " :
Still, the philosophical toings an froings don't really matter; what counts is the data, the empirical evidence, which only points in one direction.
I'm not sure if these experiments in this article help clarify anything (they do provide empirical evidence contradicting some of the statements in the some of Don's recent excerpts)http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.2404v2.pdf
I'm not sure if these experiments in this article help clarify anything (they do provide empirical evidence contradicting some of the statements in the some of Don's recent excerpts) I did discover that reading about quantum mechanics while baking is a poor mix. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.2404v2.pdfQuantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)Shan Yu, a Danko Nikoli a,b́a Department of Neurophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Deutschordenstr. 46, 60528 Frankfurt am Main, Germany bFrankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1, 60438 Frankfurt am Main, GermanAbstract"It has been suggested that consciousness plays an important role in quantum mechanics as it is necessary for the collapse of wave function during the measurement. Furthermore, this idea has spawned a symmetrical proposal: a possibility that quantum mechanics explains the emergence of consciousness in the brain. Here we formulated several predictions that follow from this hypothetical relationship and that can be empirically tested. Some of the experimental results that are already available suggest falsification of the first hypothesis. Thus, the suggested link between human consciousness and collapse of wave function does not seem viable. We discuss the constraints implied by the existingevidence on the role that the human observer may play for quantum mechanics and the role that quantum mechanics may play in the observer’s consciousness."
Come on : Reread that displayed excerpt on the subject , once again : Both Popper and Eccles, in that co-authored book of theirs (The self and its brain ...) , did argue for the existence of a separate soul whose interactions with matter cannot , by definition , but not obey any laws of physics : that sounds like substance dualism to me , even though Popper's 3 worlds theory does sound even "pluralistic" , at first sight at least .Why can't you just admit that you were completely wrong about that then ? There is no shame in admitting one's errors , to the contrary .The latter are human , too human .
I tried to download your pdf link many times , just to see what's its content might be all about , without much success : it doesn't work : i can't comment on it thus ,since i can't download it .
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447293#msg447293 date=1419448951]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 24/12/2014 18:17:52Come on : Reread that displayed excerpt on the subject , once again : Both Popper and Eccles, in that co-authored book of theirs (The self and its brain ...) , did argue for the existence of a separate soul whose interactions with matter cannot , by definition , but not obey any laws of physics : that sounds like substance dualism to me , even though Popper's 3 worlds theory does sound even "pluralistic" , at first sight at least .Why can't you just admit that you were completely wrong about that then ? There is no shame in admitting one's errors , to the contrary .The latter are human , too human .The references I've seen have been careful to distinguish between Popper's property dualist approach and substance dualism. No offence, but I'll take those references over your opinion that you think it 'sounds like' substance dualism.
But frankly, I don't really care what Popper thought on this issue; we can't ask him, and it won't actually change anything.
If you really want to give me something to think about, try to find a well-reasoned and coherent rebuttal to the empirically based Yu and Nikolic paper Cheryl posted earlier. It represents my position very nicely, so that would be the best way to change my mind - which isn't as difficult as you seem to think - after all, that's how I got to the views I have now.
Also, I'd appreciate it if - call it a gesture of seasonal goodwill if you like - you'd stop with the ad-hominems and underhand implications about my motives. That unpleasant calumny says more about you than it does about me. Just address the arguments.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 24/12/2014 19:08:14I tried to download your pdf link many times , just to see what's its content might be all about , without much success : it doesn't work : i can't comment on it thus ,since i can't download it .Search for "Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)" by Shan Yu & Danko Nikolić. It's in arxiv.org, so easily accessible.
Tell me about your references then ,or about where did Popper develop that 3 worlds theory of his : in which book or paper of his ? , for example .Not that i care much about that .
To sum up, we arrive at the following picture of the universe. There is the physical universe, world 1, with its most important sub-universe, that of the living organisms. World 2, the world of conscious experience, emerges as an evolutionary product from the world of organisms. World 3, the world of the products of the human mind, emerges as an evolutionary product from world 2.
So... no need for consciousness to understand QM, maybe. Radin's experiments seem to indicate the contrary, but there's need for further independent replication.
Fred seems also to have answered someone regarding the above by saying :Quote : "...a reply from Fred Kuttner, one of the Quantum Enigma authors:"... If you have read our book, you know that we claim neither that consciousness is needed to explain quantum mechanics ( though that is a common misinterpretation of our argument) nor vice versa. Rather, we claim that the action of free will in the choice of experiment is an encounter between consciousness and the experimental situation." End quote .I can't verify the authenticity of the above thus .
I wonder also how the above mentioned experiment that seems to have refuted the consciousness-based interpretation of QM can explain Dean Radin's double slit experiment that says the contrary,to mention just that one
.."They don't need to be mutually exclusive. Quantum Mechanics may not require consciousness to cause a collapse of the wavefunction ..., however that doesn't mean consciousness cannot collapse the wavefunction."
Feynman said something like "the double slit experiment is the only mystery in QM ..." .
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447428#msg447428 date=1419693296]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 26/12/2014 19:19:02Fred seems also to have answered someone regarding the above by saying :Quote : "...a reply from Fred Kuttner, one of the Quantum Enigma authors:"... If you have read our book, you know that we claim neither that consciousness is needed to explain quantum mechanics ( though that is a common misinterpretation of our argument) nor vice versa. Rather, we claim that the action of free will in the choice of experiment is an encounter between consciousness and the experimental situation." End quote .I can't verify the authenticity of the above thus .Haven't you read the book (from which you quote so freely) ? []
QuoteI wonder also how the above mentioned experiment that seems to have refuted the consciousness-based interpretation of QM can explain Dean Radin's double slit experiment that says the contrary,to mention just that oneI would strongly recommend that you take anything to do with Dean Radin, particularly his own publications, with a very large pinch of salt indeed (be skeptical and apply critical thinking). I've already posted some instances of basic flaws found in his work that seem beyond careless or accidental. Proceed with extreme caution.
Quote.."They don't need to be mutually exclusive. Quantum Mechanics may not require consciousness to cause a collapse of the wavefunction ..., however that doesn't mean consciousness cannot collapse the wavefunction."Ah yes. The 'giving ground' defence. I recall this was what was said about Uri Geller when all his tricks and illusions had been performed by illusionists - "Just because they can do it by sleight of hand doesn't mean Geller isn't using paranormal powers". True, but extremely unlikely. Shortly after, Geller stopped claiming he had 'special powers' and started calling himself an 'entertainer' (with an air of mystery).
Consciousness is a process, not a quantum system, so it can't itself collapse anything. A brain (conscious, unconscious, alive, or dead) can be considered a quantum system, so it is eligible for quantum interaction and so, wavefunction collapse (if you prefer that interpretation), just like any other quantum system. It only needs to be alive and conscious to register the results.
How about a brief reality check? Don: imagine a dual-slit experiment setup: source, slits, detector array, display. Let the source emit just one electron, then switch off. What does the display show?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 26/12/2014 22:06:10Feynman said something like "the double slit experiment is the only mystery in QM ..." .I agree. And one thing I've never understood about quantum woo, is the need to embellish quantum mechanics with mysticism, as if it weren't weird or amazing enough. The one sentence that really stands out in the article is I linked to is: "Because as long asthe “which-path” is in principle unobtainable, the wavefunction does not collapse, regardless of the interactionof the system with the environment (e.g., see Kim et al.,2000 and other “quantum eraser” experiments)."
Let them try first to solve the mystery of the double slit experiment , the measurement or interpretation or observation problem in QM thus ,first .