[Kartazion (OP)]

Better talk about conscience. Consciousness exists. The question is asked whether consciousness acts on matter, and it is legit.

[Kartazion (OP)]

@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

[Origin]

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.

[Colin2B]

@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.

[Kartazion (OP)]

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

[Kartazion (OP)]

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.

[Colin2B]

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.

[Kartazion (OP)]

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.

[Kartazion (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kartazion (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

That's not what they say in the video.

How does the video address reaction times?

[Kartazion (OP)]

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

[Origin]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kartazion (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.