Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Where Quantum Mystics are wrong?


bmk1245

Recommended Posts

So according to this every thing is conscious?

Another good question.

I would think that yes, but not necessarily in the way we are familiar with (like the mineral world for instance). Lower level of consciousness resulting in lower degree of awarness resulting in lower degree of free will.

Here is another good article about consciousness. Some of the things in there make sense to me. Here are some quotes. Quantum Consciousness

I have bolded some of the most fundamental aspects of my beleif(s).

"Loosely speaking, the point is that consciousness is unlikely to arise from classical properties of matter (the more we understand the structure and the fabric of the brain, the less we understand how consciousness can occur at all), which are well known and well testable. But Quantum Theory allows for a new concept of matter altogether, which may well leave cracks for consciousness, for something that is not purely material or purely extra-material. Of course, the danger in this way of thinking is to relate consciousness and Quantum only because they are both poorly understood: what they certainly have in common is a degree of "magic" that makes both mysterious and unattainable..."

"On the other hand, it is certainly true that all current neurobiological descriptions of the brain are based on Newton's Physics, even if it is well known that Newton's Physics has its limitations. First of all, Newton's Physics is an offshoot of Descartes division of the universe in matter and spirit, and it deals only with matter. Secondly, neurobiologists assume that the brain and its parts behave like classical objects, and that quantum effects are negligible, even while the "objects" they are studying get smaller and smaller. What neurobiologists are doing when they study the microstructure of the brain from a Newtonian perspective is equivalent to organizing a trip to the Moon on the basis of Aristotle's Physics, neglecting Newton's theory of gravitation.

No wonder most neurobiologists reach the conclusion that Physics (classical) cannot explain consciousness, since they are using a Physics that 1. was designed to study matter and leave out consciousness and that 2. does not work in the microworld. Not surprisingly, it has been claimed that all current neurobiological models are computationally equivalent to a Turing machine."

Of course, I'm not a biologist, physicist etc. I just find some sense into it.

My thoughts.

Peace.

Edited by JayMark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good question.

I would think that yes, but not necessarily in the way we are familiar with (like the mineral world for instance). Lower level of consciousness resulting in lower degree of awarness resulting in lower degree of free will.

Here is another good article about consciousness. Some of the things in there make sense to me. Here are some quotes. Quantum Consciousness

I have bolded some of the most fundamental aspects of my beleif(s).

"Loosely speaking, the point is that consciousness is unlikely to arise from classical properties of matter (the more we understand the structure and the fabric of the brain, the less we understand how consciousness can occur at all), which are well known and well testable. But Quantum Theory allows for a new concept of matter altogether, which may well leave cracks for consciousness, for something that is not purely material or purely extra-material. Of course, the danger in this way of thinking is to relate consciousness and Quantum only because they are both poorly understood: what they certainly have in common is a degree of "magic" that makes both mysterious and unattainable..."

"On the other hand, it is certainly true that all current neurobiological descriptions of the brain are based on Newton's Physics, even if it is well known that Newton's Physics has its limitations. First of all, Newton's Physics is an offshoot of Descartes division of the universe in matter and spirit, and it deals only with matter. Secondly, neurobiologists assume that the brain and its parts behave like classical objects, and that quantum effects are negligible, even while the "objects" they are studying get smaller and smaller. What neurobiologists are doing when they study the microstructure of the brain from a Newtonian perspective is equivalent to organizing a trip to the Moon on the basis of Aristotle's Physics, neglecting Newton's theory of gravitation.

No wonder most neurobiologists reach the conclusion that Physics (classical) cannot explain consciousness, since they are using a Physics that 1. was designed to study matter and leave out consciousness and that 2. does not work in the microworld. Not surprisingly, it has been claimed that all current neurobiological models are computationally equivalent to a Turing machine."

Of course, I'm not a biologist, physicist etc. I just find some sense into it.

My thoughts.

Peace.

Well, other neuroscientists go with fuzzy logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha you are funny. Why don't you read your own post. Just now....you are blind to your extreme bias yes just like a fundamentalist. If you can't see it, I'm sorry.

:huh:

Anyway, let me be King Herod here for a moment:

Prove to me that you're no fool

Walk across my swimming pool

Tunnel through the wall (electrons can tunnel through potential barrier) using your "mind over matter powers", will yea? We can invite Landry to do the same, heck we can invite Mr. Dr. T.Campbell as well...

Can you do it, huh? Thats a piece of cake for someone who consciously undermines matter, isn't it?

And can you "read" what is depicted in this image? Post your "reading" in drawing form, thats so easy using "mind over matter", isn't it?

Of course, after your "read" I'll post password to access archive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the experiment, there is a signal photon that is detected by D0

The idler photon is detected by D1, D2, D3, or D4. If detected by D1 or D2, its not known whether it came from slit A or B, this is the erased information. You haven't erased the information, the setup of the experiment did by hiding it. If detected by D3 it came from B, if D4 it came from A.

The experiment is now techically over, throwing away the information won't change the results.

So where is this proof of consciousness affecting the results, or detection? It's the set up of the experiment.

People really need to do their homework and research the interpretations of quantum mechanics before peddling bogus proofs.

Edited by Rlyeh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zzz can someone give me a general gist of what experiments are being run and in what "apparent" way consciousness is effecting these experiments?

I've concluded years ago that consciousness can't cause wave function collapse because it is not in itself quantum. Consciousness in itself is functionally based upon cells. As a result the effect consciousness has on the world is deterministic to a certain degree. The quantum world and consciousness are in two completely separate fields of magnitude. This should be obvious by now >.>

As far as I'm concerned there is only one moment where consciousness is functionally based off of subatomic particles. And that is the exact last moment of life.

Edited by PsiSeeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zzz can someone give me a general gist of what experiments are being run and in what "apparent" way consciousness is effecting these experiments?

I've concluded years ago that consciousness can't cause wave function collapse because it is not in itself quantum. Consciousness in itself is functionally based upon cells. As a result the effect consciousness has on the world is deterministic to a certain degree. The quantum world and consciousness are in two completely separate fields of magnitude. This should be obvious by now >.>

As far as I'm concerned there is only one moment where consciousness is functionally based off of subatomic particles. And that is the exact last moment of life.

Landry claims the Delayed Choice quantum eraser experiment proves that consciousness collapses the wave function, and even matter doesn't really exist.

Thats right, some how these experiments are performed with something that doesn't exist.

Anyway, the OP has posted scientific papers that show consciousness doesn't play a factor in the result, or the choice of what to measure (a random number generator is used).

Landry either refuses or can't produce scientific research supporting her claim and instead uses youtube video's of proponents who support consciousness causes collapse, but still insists that its proven and anyone who doesn't accept it is in denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've concluded years ago that consciousness can't cause wave function collapse because it is not in itself quantum. Consciousness in itself is functionally based upon cells. As a result the effect consciousness has on the world is deterministic to a certain degree. The quantum world and consciousness are in two completely separate fields of magnitude. This should be obvious by now >.>

Could you elaborate a bit on this?

What do you think about it being deterministic to a certain degree?

What do you mean by two completely separate fields? Are you thinking that consciousness might be of a diffrent nature? Like non-physical, or at least, partially?

I want to know because my previous posts talk about such things and it's really interesting.

As far as I'm concerned there is only one moment where consciousness is functionally based off of subatomic particles. And that is the exact last moment of life.

Could you elaborate on that too please? Seems interesting as well.

Thanks.

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The facts aren't really debatable unless you're trying to prop up unsupportable materialistic assumptions:

In 2007 Quantum Physicist Alain Aspect successfully ran John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. This experiment proved once and for all what causes the collapse of a wave function of a "particle" in super-position. As has been covered again and again, the debate as to whether the recording, measuring, instruments could be the cause is over (out in the real world). Conscious awareness - as in the conscious awareness of the experimenter has been proven to be the ultimate cause. Trying to muddy the waters by saying that the role of consciousness is restricted to conceiving and then setting up the experiment and then merely observing the results is disingenuous.

There would be no point in posting Tom Campbell's expert analysis of the experiment (that will be refused only on ideological grounds) one more time anyone who want an unbiased run down can find it on my blog [ My link ]. The ideological basis for refusal of scientific fact is simply that it is now proven that there is no mind independent material. The ontological basis of materialism is effectively obsolete. The "anomaly" of consciousness according to the materialist paradigm turns out not to an anomaly but rather the primal feature of reality. The "hard problem" (how can matter produce awareness) of consciousness has been explained without awkward and counter-intuitive assumptions.

The real "hard problem" for materialists is how to rationally base a world view on something that has been scientifically proven not to exist in the terms that were accepted as fact when the ontology of materialism was conceived. Yes ... "in reality are 99.9999999999 % empty space - the remaining 0.000000001% - isn't matter either! Those are Ivan values in a wave equation - the mathematical probability of observing something, a mathematical concept - and as such ... absolutely non-material."

New Scientist: "It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations"

"Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum."

Of course the facts will not be accepted by some (who I will be kind enough not to mention by name) ... but the established facts will not be rejected on purely logical or scientific grounds.

For those who can't accept this ... it's fine with me. Lighten up. wink2.gif

<br style="color: rgb(238, 238, 238); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; background-color: rgb(26, 26, 26); ">

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, and again you fail to support your claim. Both bmk and I have supported our claims, you haven't.

It's sad really, all this hyped up proof and you've got nothing to show. When scientific papers are presented, you do the most intelligent things you can do deny, ignore, pretend.

If consciousness causes collapse have been proven, why are physicists still working on other interpretations? Why does Hawking support MWI?

Clearly you've done no research on the subject.

Linking to your own blog only proves what a gas bag you are, find a new hobby.

Edited by Rlyeh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, and again you fail to support your claim. Both bmk and I have supported our claims, you haven't.

It's sad really, all this hyped up proof and you've got nothing to show. When scientific papers are presented, you do the most intelligent things you can do deny, ignore, pretend.

If consciousness causes collapse have been proven, why are physicists still working on other interpretations? Why does Hawking support MWI?

Clearly you've done no research on the subject.

Linking to your own blog only proves what a gas bag you are, find a new hobby.

My my ... testy lol. Those "claims" aren't just claims and they aren't mine ... scientifically demonstrated facts rise to a much higher level of credibility. Why are scientists "working" on other interpretations? Because materialism is the current dominant ideological paradigm - even if it has already been thoroughly discredited. Why does Hawking support Many Worlds Interpretation? I don't know for certain that he does. If he does it's possibly because he's working from a-priori held materialistic assumptions. If he wants to believe that every time an electron changes states you get a new universe, ... oh well ... lots of assumptions and a huge waste of resources. A concept with fewer assumptions and which is a logical derivation of the results is what is called for if truth is to be valued. You demonstrate my point ... why are you more willing to concede to the possibility of MWI even when many mainstream physicists admit that it's pretty outlandish? Simply because it's not perceived as a dire threat to the tenets of a cherished ideological belief system.

Suggesting that the only way to grasp the salient material is to dig through abstruse "papers" where physicists have monkeyed with assumptions, and are getting different results, and are then still arguing about what those results mean is a smoke screen intended to perpetuate ... whatever it's perpetuating. lol

I didn't want to do this again but if anyone wants a better understanding of the big picture I would strongly recommend watching:

BTW Thanks for the gratuitous insults. rolleyes.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My my ... testy lol. Those "claims" aren't just claims and they aren't mine ... scientifically demonstrated facts rise to a much higher level of credibility. Why are scientists "working" on other interpretations? Because materialism is the current dominant ideological paradigm - even if it has already been thoroughly discredited. Why does Hawking support Many Worlds Interpretation? I don't know for certain that he does. If he does it's possibly because he's working from a-priori held materialistic assumptions. If he wants to believe that every time an electron changes states you get a new universe, ... oh well ... lots of assumptions and a huge waste of resources. A concept with fewer assumptions and which is a logical derivation of the results is what is called for if truth is to be valued. You demonstrate my point ... why are you more willing to concede to the possibility of MWI even when many mainstream physicists admit that it's pretty outlandish? Simply because it's not perceived as a dire threat to the tenets of a cherished ideological belief system.

Right. Thoroughly discredited by youtube videos.. your so called facts are substandard. Anyway..

Do you really believe what you just said? You're basically accusing a lot of physicists (well known ones too) of denial, because they don't accept your interpretation.

You're not a skeptic of materialism, you're a religious fanatic.When you were a materialist where you as blinded by your own fanaticism as you are now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Thoroughly discredited by youtube videos.. your so called facts are substandard. Anyway..

Do you really believe what you just said? You're basically accusing a lot of physicists (well known ones too) of denial, because they don't accept your interpretation.

You're not a skeptic of materialism, you're a religious fanatic.When you were a materialist where you as blinded by your own fanaticism as you are now?

I've laid out my reasoning in my blog and other places ... and information is information regardless of the medium that conveys it. If it (a belief) is fact based, logically and internally consistent then I can hold it as a justified true belief. So, yes ... I believe what I said. [My link]

More specifically what I did is point out the possible reason why some "well known" physicists are still striving to climb atop a shaky structure of assumptions to preserve their materialistic world view (you opened the door to that one). If I haven't made it clear that I'm skeptical of materialism then I guess I'm going to have to continue to persevere. *sigh* heh heh

If I'm a religious fanatic ... what religion am I fanatically promoting?

When I thought I was a materialist I was in school and too busy to really investigate philosophy until the fundamental connection with logic / empiricism / science became clear. Materialism was the default philosophy and I simply accepted it as a given ... I didn't proselytize. If a person can't reach a conclusion through their own (hopefully logical) thought process it amounts to mental and psychological coercion, what good would that do?

I might direct your last question back to you. As a materialist are you, "blinded by your own fanaticism" ? ... but I wouldn't do that.wink2.gif

Chill ... relax! Allow people to decide for themselves. grin2.gif

Edited by Landry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you elaborate a bit on this?

What do you think about it being deterministic to a certain degree?

What do you mean by two completely separate fields? Are you thinking that consciousness might be of a diffrent nature? Like non-physical, or at least, partially?

I want to know because my previous posts talk about such things and it's really interesting.

Sure thing :).

Okay, the reason we have quantum events is because of their incredibly small nature. It is obvious to anyone that once we go larger the "uncertainty" and "wacky" nature of quantum events are mostly "lost." I feel that this is because some of their weird nature turns into forces. I.e electromagnetism from electrons. If it wasn't for quantum mechanics we could say with a certain degree of confidence that the universe is deterministic. That is we would be able to specify some specific variables with which we can then predict future events.

The reason we can't do this I feel is because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It is physically impossible to know every variable of the universe and therefore is physically impossible to make very accurate predictions over large periods of time.

Anyway, when people talk about "breaking down the wave function with consciousness" I specifically read into this as being able to control probability with the force of one's mind. (Macro-telekinesis really) The reason I don't believe this is consciously possible "in the moment," when directly observing reality, is because reality itself is already largely certain. (That is reality is largely deterministic) This is to say that there isn't a lot of uncertainty to try and collapse. (I read into wave function as levels of uncertainty with some events having higher probability than others.)

Now consciousness for me is functionally based off of one's cells. As a result the effect consciousness has on reality is fairly deterministic because cells themselves are fairly deterministic. If consciousness was a single observation in the quantum world where only one possibility could exist then yes conscious observation would break down the wave function of subatomic particles. It it not quantum however. It's cellular. This is why I say that consciousness and subatomic particles are in two completely different fields of magnitude.

I do believe that who you are is quantum. However who you are is continually spawned out of the potential for who you are (your brain.) So who you are is continually being redefined and exists on a cellular level. As a result who you are will be largely dependent on the physical constraints of your brain. There is only one moment, in my opinion, where who you are isn't dependent on your brain. And that is the exact last moment of your life. The last brain surge. This is where who you are exists purely as electrical energy for one instant. It's unclear what happens to the kinetic you at this point or what effect a conscious event would have at this point.

Could you elaborate on that too please? Seems interesting as well.

Thanks.

Peace.

No worries. I have a lot of thoughts running around in my head. Not sure how to easily explain them all without super walls of text x|.

Edit: I want to talk about this experiment but I haven't had time to properly investigate it yet.

Edited by PsiSeeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've laid out my reasoning in my blog and other places ... and information is information regardless of the medium that conveys it. If it (a belief) is fact based, logically and internally consistent then I can hold it as a justified true belief. So, yes ... I believe what I said. [My link]

More specifically what I did is point out the possible reason why some "well known" physicists are still striving to climb atop a shaky structure of assumptions to preserve their materialistic world view (you opened the door to that one). If I haven't made it clear that I'm skeptical of materialism then I guess I'm going to have to continue to persevere. *sigh* heh heh

Nice try. Although you claimed what your reasoning is, your actions paint a very different picture. Bogus proofs, plugs for your links and youtube videos, blatant ignorance towards quantum interpretations, rejection of scientific papers.

That sounds like someone trying to hide the facts.

If I'm a religious fanatic ... what religion am I fanatically promoting?
Anti-materialism, consciousness causes collapse. You've made them into a religion.
I might direct your last question back to you. As a materialist are you, "blinded by your own fanaticism" ? ... but I wouldn't do that.wink2.gif

Chill ... relax! Allow people to decide for themselves. grin2.gif

The biggest difference is, I've put forth different interpretations, even ones I don't agree with. I've shown the whole picture, you've done the total opposite.

If you wanted people to decide for themselves, why haven't you shown the scientific research? No, promoting your own links and beliefs is far more easier.

Edited by Rlyeh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] Yes ... "[/color]in reality are 99.9999999999 % empty space - the remaining 0.000000001% - isn't matter either! Those are Ivan values in a wave equation - the mathematical probability of observing something, a mathematical concept - and as such ... absolutely non-material."[...]

So, walk through the wall, read what is depicted in the image, change decay rate of 60Co with your "mind over matter" thoughts. Can't do it? Then you are simply lying to yourself, and to others as well...

Funny, science progresses, while delusional mumbo-jumbers still sit in front of broken trough trying to make it gold :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try. Although you claimed what your reasoning is, your actions paint a very different picture. Bogus proofs, plugs for your links and youtube videos, blatant ignorance towards quantum interpretations, rejection of scientific papers.

That sounds like someone trying to hide the facts.[/color]

[/color]

Anti-materialism, consciousness causes collapse. You've made them into a religion.

The biggest difference is, I've put forth different interpretations, even ones I don't agree with. I've shown the whole picture, you've done the total opposite.

If you wanted people to decide for themselves, why haven't you shown the scientific research? No, promoting your own links and beliefs is far more easier.

You've come to the point in your argumentation where you charge me with everything that you're guilty of. I invite everyone to visit my blog or to review what I've presented here in previous posts so that they can make their own determination as to the actual efficacy of your charges against me. [My link]

The foundation for the reasoning that I've presented might be new to you, but it's accepted as being essential and basic to rational thought.

Calling the "proofs" that I've presented bogus because you reject them for ideological reasons is a threadbare tactic. You've worn it out.

There are three main reasons why I've provided links to my blog.

1) To keep from having to repeat myself in detail endlessly.

2) To provide something for my part to keep the forum topic on track, since you're trying to bog me down in trying to defend myself from attacks.

3) To provide a history of your diversionary tactics.

Seriously? "If you wanted people to decide for themselves, why haven't you shown the scientific research?" I have shown the scientific research over and over - you reject it on ideological grounds. You have endlessly demonstrated that the basic premise that consciousness is primal is anathema to you.

So I've created a new religion by being skeptical of materialism. hmmm Am I good or what? laugh.gif

"blatant ignorance towards quantum interpretations, rejection of scientific papers."

.... when I've presented an overview assessment by a highly qualified expert? [

] Which by the way is a much more effectual than continually demanding "papers" which you should well know are nothing more in summation than different physicists proposing different assumptions ... getting different results, and arguing about what those results might mean.

Yes, just let people decide for themselves. You're not helping yourself with your transparent posturing and false charges.

Edited by Landry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, walk through the wall, read what is depicted in the image, change decay rate of 60Co with your "mind over matter" thoughts. Can't do it? Then you are simply lying to yourself, and to others as well...

Funny, science progresses, while delusional mumbo-jumbers still sit in front of broken trough trying to make it gold :lol:

I refer you to my blog - there's no need for me to repeat myself again trying to express it a different way.

"Consciousness / information is the fundamental reality IMO, the only thing that really exists is non-physical. Fundamental materialistic beliefs are based on obsolete assumptions - not on what is now known to be true. Culturally conditioned ideological beliefs are difficult to overturn especially when they are irrational, they do not readily yield to fact or logical argument. They appear to be so obviously correct to the belief holder, that they are perceived to be beyond questioning. Questioning such fundamental assumptions is seen to be an affront by the people who hold to these ideologically entrenched perceptions. Culturally motivated beliefs are pervasive, they are needed by the timid, the conformists, the followers, to define the acceptable limits of reality.Historically, ground-breaking scientific progress is made by complete shifts - from one dominant paradigm to another. The "anomalies" within the currently dominant materialistic paradigm are not really anomalies ... but rather fundamental descriptions of a transcendent, consciousness / information based construct of reality that is here to stay - like it or not. "

"The brain in a jar thought experiment [1]: The purpose of this thought experiment is not to propose that one is actually a brain in a jar, but to illuminate the idea that if such were the case, we would have no way of knowing since we do not apprehend reality directly but rather through our senses which themselves interpose a barrier to direct sensory experience - the same as if our brains were receiving sensory input from a super-computer while in a jar. For example, we can never directly apprehend the present moment since a sensory experience must be converted to an electrical signal and then conveyed along the nerves to the appropriate area of the brain which then interprets it for us to experience. Vision itself actually occurs in total darkness inside the skull. So to say that we can know reality through our senses is a belief about reality rather than a fact of reality. "

Tom Campbell also addresses the consistency of reality necessity - what you propose is fantasy (at least as far as I know) in this informational construct of reality. You really should watch the entire video. My link

Edited by Landry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've come to the point in your argumentation where you charge me with everything that you're guilty of. I invite everyone to visit my blog or to review what I've presented here in previous posts so that they can make their own determination as to the actual efficacy of your charges against me. [My link]

The foundation for the reasoning that I've presented might be new to you, but it's accepted as being essential and basic to rational thought.

Still plugging away?

You might want to get the thinking part down then you can worry about the rational. Honesty would greatly help too.

Calling the "proofs" that I've presented bogus because you reject them for ideological reasons is a threadbare tactic. You've worn it out.
Keep lying, and I'm going to keep correcting you until you get it through your head. I've made it quite clear why I reject your "proofs".

I don't take kindly to liars.

I have shown the scientific research over and over - you reject it on ideological grounds. You have endlessly demonstrated that the basic premise that consciousness is primal is anathema to you.
Come on, where is it? And I mean scientific research, just incase your memory slips and you try to pass off youtube.
So I've created a new religion by being skeptical of materialism. hmmm Am I good or what? laugh.gif
All you need now is some phenobarbital and a plastic bag, and then you'll be riding on a magical space ship with this guy

41784_30848776369_6199482_n.jpg

"blatant ignorance towards quantum interpretations, rejection of scientific papers."

.... when I've presented an overview assessment by a highly qualified expert? [

] Which by the way is a much more effectual than continually demanding "papers" which you should well know are nothing more in summation than different physicists proposing different assumptions ... getting different results, and arguing about what those results might mean.

Yes, just let people decide for themselves. You're not helping yourself with your transparent posturing and false charges.

You've presented an opinion, you're own ignorance, and baseless accusations when you're called on your BS.

You know you haven't got anything, your excuses undeniably prove you'll make up anything to save your ass. Keep digging yourself deeper.

Edited by Rlyeh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still plugging away?

You might want to get the thinking part down then you can worry about the rational. Honesty would greatly help too.

Keep lying, and I'm going to keep correcting you until you get it through your head. I've made it quite clear why I reject your "proofs".

I don't take kindly to liars.

[/color]

Come on, where is it? And I mean scientific research, just incase your memory slips and you try to pass off youtube.

All you need now is some phenobarbital and a plastic bag, and then you'll be riding on a magical space ship with this guy

41784_30848776369_6199482_n.jpg

You've presented an opinion, you're own ignorance, and baseless accusations when you're called on your BS.

You know you haven't got anything, your excuses undeniably prove you'll make up anything to save your ass. Keep digging yourself deeper.

I'll check back for something substantive. sleepy.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the macro and micro always interact. so it would appear that the waves themselves choose when to collapse according to what interacts with them. even if human consciousness can collapse waves, these 2 bits of information dont contradict each other. i know im dumb but i dont see the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll check back for something substantive. sleepy.gif

Already in the OP. If your head wasn't stuck so far you'd see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Landry claims the Delayed Choice quantum eraser experiment proves that consciousness collapses the wave function, and even matter doesn't really exist.

Thats right, some how these experiments are performed with something that doesn't exist.

Well, from reading http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.3977v1.pdf it's apparent that causation, and as a result wave function collapse, are intuitively misinterpreted and this clears it up nicely. Causation doesn't actually come into it because of conditional probability. As a result an observer doesn't cause backward causality. Only backward correlation as a result of conditional probability. Any observer, whether conscious or not, would measure the same result/s.

Anyway, the OP has posted scientific papers that show consciousness doesn't play a factor in the result, or the choice of what to measure (a random number generator is used).

Landry either refuses or can't produce scientific research supporting her claim and instead uses youtube video's of proponents who support consciousness causes collapse, but still insists that its proven and anyone who doesn't accept it is in denial.

Anyway, I don't understand how any of this implicates non-materialism. Unless the implication is that there is only matter when there is an observer? :S Is this what's going on?

This also inadvertently points to the objectivity + subjectivity argument. It implies that objectivity does not exist. I find it very difficult to understand anyone's arguments regarding this. I know that perceptually objectivity can never be truly realized. This does not mean that it does not exist however.

Not entirely sure what to think of solipsism at this point. I believe there is an objective reality however I also understand that that which is objective can only be interpreted subjectively. To assume that one's own perspective is the cause of all of reality seems a little... Overboard to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I don't understand how any of this implicates non-materialism. Unless the implication is that there is only matter when there is an observer? :S Is this what's going on?

This also inadvertently points to the objectivity + subjectivity argument. It implies that objectivity does not exist. I find it very difficult to understand anyone's arguments regarding this. I know that perceptually objectivity can never be truly realized. This does not mean that it does not exist however.

Not entirely sure what to think of solipsism at this point. I believe there is an objective reality however I also understand that that which is objective can only be interpreted subjectively. To assume that one's own perspective is the cause of all of reality seems a little... Overboard to me.

According to her links, matter doesn't really exist because the brain in a jar thought experiment shows you can only be sure of your own awareness. As expected, any scientists opinion that fits with her own becomes "proof" that materialism is false.

The entire foundation is based on something that by its nature is unverifiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to her links, matter doesn't really exist because the brain in a jar thought experiment shows you can only be sure of your own awareness. As expected, any scientists opinion that fits with her own becomes "proof" that materialism is false.

The entire foundation is based on something that by its nature is unverifiable.

"the brain in a jar"

You havnt understood anything, She has been trying to tell you, she even indirectly corrected me.

What do you do for a man in quicksand When you toss him a rope, but he is to busy praying for deliverance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to her links, matter doesn't really exist because the brain in a jar thought experiment shows you can only be sure of your own awareness. As expected, any scientists opinion that fits with her own becomes "proof" that materialism is false.

The entire foundation is based on something that by its nature is unverifiable.

I still don't understand how the brain in a jar thought experiment implies that materialism is false? The brain in the jar thought experiment fails straight away as it still necessarily assumes input from some external entity. Therefore there is something external to the self.

If there was only brain. Well why assume there is only brain? This reminds me of the Russell's teapot thought experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Edit1: If you really think about it deeply enough even if there were only brain it still fails. What are you? A person isn't their brain. A person is the kinetic form of electrical energy generated by the brain. The brain is only the potential for who the person is. Therefore the brain in itself is already an "external material thing."

Edited by PsiSeeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.