0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg448021#msg448021 date=1420413907]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/01/2015 18:01:41Watch Joy Jim at work : he explains that to you in a funny way : don't "shut up and calculate " as if there is no interpretation problem in QM , there is , big time : Enjoy ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQSorry, Jim, the "offset dectector" is nonsense. How do you detect the atom passing through the slit without doing something to it? Heisenberg sorted this out a long time ago.
Watch Joy Jim at work : he explains that to you in a funny way : don't "shut up and calculate " as if there is no interpretation problem in QM , there is , big time : Enjoy ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ
Suppose the offset detector was a photographic film. You do the experiment and get a result, either an interference pattern or two lines. Now toss a coin. If it comes down heads, you process the film. That is equivalent to switching on the detector, so the interference pattern you recorded (on another piece of film) must disappear and be replaced by two lines. Does it? I think not.
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg448010#msg448010 date=1420408180]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/01/2015 20:39:56(Prior note : Biological evolution can never intrinsically account for consciousness , let alone for its emergence ,function, origin or nature .consciousness could never have evolved from the biological evolution , no way , simply because consciousness is irreducible to biology and cannot have emerged from it , no way .Think about that .It makes no biological sense whatsoever to assert that : the subjective personal qualitative experiential can never rise from the quantitative non-experiential "impersonal objective " biology : they are totally different from each other in kind .Even some of your best philosophers , scientists ... cannot but agree with me on that , dlorde .Think about it .) I have thought about it, and I find it both plausible and compellingly supported by the evidence.
(Prior note : Biological evolution can never intrinsically account for consciousness , let alone for its emergence ,function, origin or nature .consciousness could never have evolved from the biological evolution , no way , simply because consciousness is irreducible to biology and cannot have emerged from it , no way .Think about that .It makes no biological sense whatsoever to assert that : the subjective personal qualitative experiential can never rise from the quantitative non-experiential "impersonal objective " biology : they are totally different from each other in kind .Even some of your best philosophers , scientists ... cannot but agree with me on that , dlorde .Think about it .)
Since you mention it, let's consider the evolutionary perspective. Do you consider any other animals to have some form of consciousness? Other primates? cetaceans? corvids? - creatures that display signs of self-awareness, can communicate complex ideas, understand instructions, are creative, use tools, plan ahead, have theory of mind?
Would you agree that there are degrees of consciousness among other species in the animal kingdom, with less sophisticated creatures having lesser degrees of consciousness?
What, in particular, do you find incredible about the evolution of consciousness?
QuoteI don't know whether or not consciousness does collapse the wavefunction .I am just inclined to agree with what Alastair Rae ,for example ,said on the subject when talking about the consciousness -based interpretation of QM.All due respect to Rae, but the available evidence says no, and the idea on which it was based has been shown to be mistaken.
I don't know whether or not consciousness does collapse the wavefunction .I am just inclined to agree with what Alastair Rae ,for example ,said on the subject when talking about the consciousness -based interpretation of QM.
QuoteAssume for a sec thus that consciousness is a separate non-physical and non-local process , that would solve the interpretation problem in QM What, exactly, is a 'non-physical process'? how can it interact with the physical? how does it solve the interpretation problem?
Assume for a sec thus that consciousness is a separate non-physical and non-local process , that would solve the interpretation problem in QM
QuoteA temporary unconscious person is no synonymous of a person without consciousness .The latter is still there ,it is just 'disconnected " somehow, from that person's physical brain and body +from the rest of his/her environment, but not totally disconnected , i presume , i don't know .For example ,a younger brother of mine used to do some sleep walking when we were kids .I had even to go after him during a certain night when he sleep walked out of the house to the street ...to bring him back lol He was asleep but nevertheless , he did things like a conscious person would like opening the doors , going out , talking , walking down the street,and even eating ,drinking ...while asleep ...fMRI scans are even able now to detect a minimum form of consciousness in vegetative patients , not to mention that even at the level of deep dreamless or paradoxical deep sleep , some neuroscientists claim to have detected some subtle forms of consciousness .Some Buddhist meditation experts monks ,for example ,even claim that they can train their minds to be aware or conscious of ,monitor and control their deep sleep state .When you wake up feeling like you slept well, they claim, that means that you have remembered your calm deep sleep , i don't know .In short : being asleep or temporary unconscious does not mean a total absence of consciousness .That's what I call a straw herring; a straw-man combined with a red herring... Leave the goalposts where they are - unconscious means 'not conscious'. When I talked of someone unconscious, I didn't mean asleep, or sleep-walking, or conscious but unresponsive, I meant not concsious. My point was predicated on the absence of the conscious awareness of the result of a measurement that is the criterion for the conscious collapse version of the Copenhagen interpretation. Not some kind of non-physical soul or spirit. If that's what you mean, you're talking about something else entirely.
A temporary unconscious person is no synonymous of a person without consciousness .The latter is still there ,it is just 'disconnected " somehow, from that person's physical brain and body +from the rest of his/her environment, but not totally disconnected , i presume , i don't know .For example ,a younger brother of mine used to do some sleep walking when we were kids .I had even to go after him during a certain night when he sleep walked out of the house to the street ...to bring him back lol He was asleep but nevertheless , he did things like a conscious person would like opening the doors , going out , talking , walking down the street,and even eating ,drinking ...while asleep ...fMRI scans are even able now to detect a minimum form of consciousness in vegetative patients , not to mention that even at the level of deep dreamless or paradoxical deep sleep , some neuroscientists claim to have detected some subtle forms of consciousness .Some Buddhist meditation experts monks ,for example ,even claim that they can train their minds to be aware or conscious of ,monitor and control their deep sleep state .When you wake up feeling like you slept well, they claim, that means that you have remembered your calm deep sleep , i don't know .In short : being asleep or temporary unconscious does not mean a total absence of consciousness .
QuoteNot to mention the fact that our unconsciousness is also a part of our separate souls that can have effects on our bodies brains and environment even when we are asleep or unconscious .Well you're on your own there. I'm not here to talk about souls, spirits, the supernatural, magic, religion, or gods, but to discuss scientific ideas about our empirical observations.
Not to mention the fact that our unconsciousness is also a part of our separate souls that can have effects on our bodies brains and environment even when we are asleep or unconscious .
QuoteYou can't explain the mystery of the interpretation of QM by trying to explain away the other major mystery :consciousness .See above .I agree. That's why I'm not trying to explain either QM or consciousness, I'm just telling you that conscious collapse is untenable if it's based on Von Neumann's chain, because that isn't a correct description of the real-world situation.
You can't explain the mystery of the interpretation of QM by trying to explain away the other major mystery :consciousness .See above .
Quote... there is a lots of indirect empirical evidence that has been proving that ...You're think indirect evidence can be proof ? []
... there is a lots of indirect empirical evidence that has been proving that ...
Cheryl, dlorde : <... stuff ...>
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447935#msg447935 date=1420325123]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/01/2015 20:55:45For example, when you look at something or just at these lines , you instantly not only get aware and conscious of them , but you also understand them : no laws of physics alone , no brain activity alone can account for that human ability of yours to instantly not only to be aware and conscious of these lines but to also understand them .Well, the pathways through which they are processed in the brain have been identified, and the areas where specific steps in the identification and recognition of words have been identified, and it has been established that simple maths, and even simple contextual understanding of words & phrases occurs at a subconscious level (not to mention the more sophisticated executive functions, once thought to be purely conscious, like inhibiting automatic responses [see van Gaal, S., 'Frontal Cortex Mediates Unconsciously Triggered Inhibitory Control' - Journal of Neuroscience 30]). Also, as has been mentioned previously, specific disruptions to these brain areas and pathways cause specific deficits in understanding and awareness - as specific as failure to recognise or understand particular elements (specific words, or classes of words, or specific meanings, or numbers, or sentences but not individual words, etc). So it's pretty clear that most of this is below conscious awareness, and all of it is a matter of brain processing.
For example, when you look at something or just at these lines , you instantly not only get aware and conscious of them , but you also understand them : no laws of physics alone , no brain activity alone can account for that human ability of yours to instantly not only to be aware and conscious of these lines but to also understand them .
QuoteEven the "ordinary " act of seeing cannot be explained just by the physiology of the biological eye and brain , no way : it's the mind that sees through the eye and brain , not the latter .The recursive homunculus of Dennett's 'Cartesian Theatre' is the argument you need to overcome to maintain that view. Then you'll need to account for the neurophysiology of the visual cortex, where the progressive and hierarchical processing of visual information to produce a coherent 3D model of the visual field is well established, and using models derived from the neural networks there, computer models have been product that are subject to the same visual illusions as we are. Even sensory interference illusions like the McGurk Effect have been elucidated.
Even the "ordinary " act of seeing cannot be explained just by the physiology of the biological eye and brain , no way : it's the mind that sees through the eye and brain , not the latter .
QuoteThink about it , let's talk about how you decide to hold in place certain mind states , thoughts , feelings , emotions ....while eliminating or suppressing the other competitive or rival ones in the process that do compete to grab your attention : you do that via your own mindful volitional effort of attention through your veto power .That choice cannot be determined by the laws of physics , not entirely at least ,as the forward writer to a certain Libet's book said )I posted that earlier on ) .See the van Gaal paper (above) for empirical evidence that's not necessarily the case.
Think about it , let's talk about how you decide to hold in place certain mind states , thoughts , feelings , emotions ....while eliminating or suppressing the other competitive or rival ones in the process that do compete to grab your attention : you do that via your own mindful volitional effort of attention through your veto power .That choice cannot be determined by the laws of physics , not entirely at least ,as the forward writer to a certain Libet's book said )I posted that earlier on ) .
QuoteTaking into consideration the non-mechanical causal efficacy of the mind on matter and the fact that you interpret what you see or perceive mindfully , considering all that and more , i do not see how the mind cannot have any 'disturbing and interpretative " effects on the "observed " measurements or data , i don't know , but to assert there can be no effect is really far fetched an assertion or a denial .That's just a problem with assuming there's non-mechanical causal efficacy of non-physical mind on matter - it leads to all manner of problems and difficulties, particularly when the empirical evidence contradicts it.
Taking into consideration the non-mechanical causal efficacy of the mind on matter and the fact that you interpret what you see or perceive mindfully , considering all that and more , i do not see how the mind cannot have any 'disturbing and interpretative " effects on the "observed " measurements or data , i don't know , but to assert there can be no effect is really far fetched an assertion or a denial .
Quote...Thompson shows how the self is a changing process, not a static thing. When we are awake we identify with our body, but if we let our mind wander or daydream, we project a mentally imagined self into the remembered past or anticipated future. As we fall asleep, the impression of being a bounded self distinct from the world dissolves, but the self reappears in the dream state. If we have a lucid dream, we no longer identify only with the self within the dream. Our sense of self now includes our dreaming self, the "I" as dreamer. Finally, as we meditate--either in the waking state or in a lucid dream--we can observe whatever images or thoughts arise and how we tend to identify with them as "me." We can also experience sheer awareness itself, distinct from the changing contents that make up our image of the self.Contemplative traditions say that we can learn to let go of the self, so that when we die we can witness its dissolution with equanimity. Thompson weaves together neuroscience, philosophy, and personal narrative to depict these transformations, adding uncommon depth to life's profound questions. Contemplative experience comes to illuminate scientific findings, and scientific evidence enriches the vast knowledge acquired by contemplatives."End quote.[/i]None of that is inconsistent with the sense of self, and consciousness, being products of brain activity - in fact, the reported experiences are entirely consistent with the neuroscience of self and how it is constructed in the brain.
...Thompson shows how the self is a changing process, not a static thing. When we are awake we identify with our body, but if we let our mind wander or daydream, we project a mentally imagined self into the remembered past or anticipated future. As we fall asleep, the impression of being a bounded self distinct from the world dissolves, but the self reappears in the dream state. If we have a lucid dream, we no longer identify only with the self within the dream. Our sense of self now includes our dreaming self, the "I" as dreamer. Finally, as we meditate--either in the waking state or in a lucid dream--we can observe whatever images or thoughts arise and how we tend to identify with them as "me." We can also experience sheer awareness itself, distinct from the changing contents that make up our image of the self.Contemplative traditions say that we can learn to let go of the self, so that when we die we can witness its dissolution with equanimity. Thompson weaves together neuroscience, philosophy, and personal narrative to depict these transformations, adding uncommon depth to life's profound questions. Contemplative experience comes to illuminate scientific findings, and scientific evidence enriches the vast knowledge acquired by contemplatives."End quote.[/i]
QuoteQuoteQuoteBell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge classical realism, remember ,not to mention classical determinism and classical locality too .But not causality, so not relevant here.Not causality ? Sure about that ? How can one explain entanglement or non-locality that challenged the classical locality or separability that used to asset that no event A can be caused by B without any physical causation and one that should not exceed the speed of light ? Explain that "spooky action at a distance " to me and what causality is there to explain it ?Sure as eggs is eggs. As has been said repeatedly in this very thread, nothing about entanglement or "spooky action at a distance " involves the transfer of information FTL. Causality remains intact and unthreatened.
QuoteQuoteBell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge classical realism, remember ,not to mention classical determinism and classical locality too .But not causality, so not relevant here.Not causality ? Sure about that ? How can one explain entanglement or non-locality that challenged the classical locality or separability that used to asset that no event A can be caused by B without any physical causation and one that should not exceed the speed of light ? Explain that "spooky action at a distance " to me and what causality is there to explain it ?
QuoteBell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge classical realism, remember ,not to mention classical determinism and classical locality too .But not causality, so not relevant here.
Bell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge classical realism, remember ,not to mention classical determinism and classical locality too .
QuoteEntanglement that has been turning the very concept of causality on its head thus ...No.
Entanglement that has been turning the very concept of causality on its head thus ...
QuoteHow can you a -priori exclude that possibility or unknown black swan .? No-one's excluding possibilities a-priori. You look at what is known (the existing consistently reliable framework of knowledge), and the empirical data (what observation and experiment tells you), and you draw up testable models and hypotheses that are consistent with the existing framework. All provisional. What you don't do is make up stuff you'd like to be true and try to argue that anything that contradicts it must be wrong.
How can you a -priori exclude that possibility or unknown black swan .?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/01/2015 17:43:25Cheryl, dlorde : <... stuff ...>You're off the deep end, Don. It's simply nonsense to claim any of that is relevant.
Yet we should be cautious here. The fact that you have no memory of some period of time doesn’t necessarily imply that you lacked all consciousness during that time.You might have been conscious— in the sense of undergoing qualitative states or processes of sentience or awareness—but for one reason or another not been able to form the kind of memories that later you can retrieve and verbally report.This point is familiar to scientists who study the effects of anesthetics. At certain doses, some anesthetics prevent memory formation while sparing awareness.
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg448051#msg448051 date=1420491879]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/01/2015 17:43:25Yet we should be cautious here. The fact that you have no memory of some period of time doesn’t necessarily imply that you lacked all consciousness during that time.You might have been conscious— in the sense of undergoing qualitative states or processes of sentience or awareness—but for one reason or another not been able to form the kind of memories that later you can retrieve and verbally report.This point is familiar to scientists who study the effects of anesthetics. At certain doses, some anesthetics prevent memory formation while sparing awareness. Gee, and why would that be since memories are not stored in the brain according to your theory? If you experienced it, if you were consciously aware of those events while they were occurring, you should be able to remember it, according to your model of consciousness. Even if your brain becomes temporarily unable to transmit non local consciousness at some point, once its functionally properly again, the memory of any event that you consciously experienced should be completely accessible, unless:a) memories are actually formed and stored in the brainb) you weren't in fact conscious while those events were taking place.
It dépends on how one (mis ) interprets that through one's own a-priori held world view that does shape one's own consciousness and behavior , ironically enough lol : you're talking from the materialist point of view thus , by basing all your arguments and conclusions on that major false materialistic premise, in the sense that consciousness and the mind +their memories and the rest are just brain activity ,for example, and hence memory is stored in the brain ....
Quote author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg448021#msg448021 date=1420413907]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/01/2015 18:01:41Watch Joy Jim at work : he explains that to you in a funny way : don't "shut up and calculate " as if there is no interpretation problem in QM , there is , big time : Enjoy ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQSorry, Jim, the "offset dectector" is nonsense. How do you detect the atom passing through the slit without doing something to it? Heisenberg sorted this out a long time ago. That's exactly what i thought , Alan, seriously . How can one detect anything at the quantum level at least without a detector ? lol
QuoteSuppose the offset detector was a photographic film. You do the experiment and get a result, either an interference pattern or two lines. Now toss a coin. If it comes down heads, you process the film. That is equivalent to switching on the detector, so the interference pattern you recorded (on another piece of film) must disappear and be replaced by two lines. Does it? I think not. Be more specific , Alan, please .
Are you denying the very existence of the interpretation problem in QM by denying the existence of the mystery of the double slit experiment ? I think you are .You said previously that there was no problem at all .Shall i call the cops regarding the fact that you do continue keeping that skeleton in your closet ?
Excerpt from " WAKING, DREAMING, BEING: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy ", Chapter 8 : " Sleeping : Are we conscious in deep sleep ? " By Evan Thompson :
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/01/2015 17:43:25Excerpt from " WAKING, DREAMING, BEING: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy ", Chapter 8 : " Sleeping : Are we conscious in deep sleep ? " By Evan Thompson :I must have missed a post or few. What is your point in posting all this? Did some one argue that there is no brain activity or mental activity while asleep?
Quote from: cheryl j on 05/01/2015 22:34:53Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/01/2015 17:43:25Excerpt from " WAKING, DREAMING, BEING: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy ", Chapter 8 : " Sleeping : Are we conscious in deep sleep ? " By Evan Thompson :I must have missed a post or few. What is your point in posting all this? Did some one argue that there is no brain activity or mental activity while asleep? It's a red herring - an absurd equivocation of consciousness to avoid the joke argument I made against the conscious collapse version of the Copenhagen interpretation (which mistakenly maintains that wavefunction collapse occurs when someone becomes consciously aware of the result of a measurement). I suggested that an unconscious individual would not collapse the wavefunction and the entanglement would decohere by the time he came round, leaving no clear outcome under this interpretation Rather than point out the obvious flaws in the argument, he's apparently decided that you can be conscious even when completely unconscious (e.g. in a coma), and so this means you're aware enough to perceive the measurement and collapse the wavefunction...You can draw your own conclusions.
Prior note : well, we could have been aware or conscious of of some past events without having any memory left of them , like in the case of some traumas the memory of which we could have suppressed for example or something that we forgot or did not pay enough attention to or whatever .Psychoanalysis , for example , can help us retrieve the traumatic suppressed memories ...and overcome them by coming to terms with them .
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg448057#msg448057 date=1420497293]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/01/2015 17:43:25Excerpt from " WAKING, DREAMING, BEING: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy ", Chapter 8 : " Sleeping : Are we conscious in deep sleep ? " By Evan Thompson :I must have missed a post or few. What is your point in posting all this?
Did some one argue that there is no brain activity or mental activity while asleep?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/01/2015 21:48:01Prior note : well, we could have been aware or conscious of of some past events without having any memory left of them , like in the case of some traumas the memory of which we could have suppressed for example or something that we forgot or did not pay enough attention to or whatever .Psychoanalysis , for example , can help us retrieve the traumatic suppressed memories ...and overcome them by coming to terms with them .Fascinating. So where does non local consciousness hide these immaterial memories from its immaterial self?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/01/2015 18:45:57Quote author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg448021#msg448021 date=1420413907]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 03/01/2015 18:01:41Watch Joy Jim at work : he explains that to you in a funny way : don't "shut up and calculate " as if there is no interpretation problem in QM , there is , big time : Enjoy ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQSorry, Jim, the "offset dectector" is nonsense. How do you detect the atom passing through the slit without doing something to it? Heisenberg sorted this out a long time ago. That's exactly what i thought , Alan, seriously . How can one detect anything at the quantum level at least without a detector ? lol Heisenberg pointed out that the least disturbing thing you can do to observe a particle is to bounce a photon off it, which must of course alter its momentum. From this, you can deduce the indeterminacy principle and Heisenberg's equation. QuoteQuoteSuppose the offset detector was a photographic film. You do the experiment and get a result, either an interference pattern or two lines. Now toss a coin. If it comes down heads, you process the film. That is equivalent to switching on the detector, so the interference pattern you recorded (on another piece of film) must disappear and be replaced by two lines. Does it? I think not. Be more specific , Alan, please .Can't be much more specific. Jim al-K wittered on about "switching off the detector" but was very inexplicit about what he would use to detect whether an atom had passed though a slit. So I have introduced a detector that may or may not be "switched on" at the time, but neither we nor the atom can know because it may or may not be "switched on" several days later. What Heisenberg and I are getting at, is that any actual detector must interfere with the experiment in order to detect.What happens in Jim's experiment if we have a very inefficient detector, that only picks up, say, half of the atoms that pass through slit A? Do we get a distorted interference pattern, or do 75% of the atoms go through slit B instead of 50%? It can't be the latter because that would mean that we had actually detected all the As! The more you analyse the experiment, the less meaningful it becomes, because he is starting with a macroscopic model and assuming it will work microscopically, whereas we know from hundreds of years of physics, that you can't do it backwards.Quote Are you denying the very existence of the interpretation problem in QM by denying the existence of the mystery of the double slit experiment ? I think you are .You said previously that there was no problem at all .Shall i call the cops regarding the fact that you do continue keeping that skeleton in your closet ?There is no mystery, any more than the mystery of why apples fall downward. There's a lot of stupidity and oversimplification when people try to predict quantum effects by scaling down macroscopic observations, for exactly the same reason as you shouldn't treat an individual patient on the basis of population statistics. Statistics generalises from the particular, classical mechanics averages a huge number of quantum events. Neither process is reversible. The skeleton in my closet is over 50 years of using quantum mechanics to explain macroscopic phenomena, and the profound knowledge that you can't predict quantum phenomena by looking at chunks of rock, or even grains of sand. You will find the same skeleton key in the toolkit of every physicist and chemist who was educated in the late 20th century - we started some 2000 years after Aristotle and 300 years after Newton, so we don't finish in the place where the pioneers of quantum mechanics began.The behaviour of particles is a fact, not a mystery. Particles do what they do, consistently, and we have evolved appropriate mathematical models to predict what they do in different circumstances.