Where Quantum Mystics are wrong?

[Leonardo]

"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?

Make sure the rope hits him - so he is jolted back into the actual reality that exists for both of you. Either that or you could simply sit there and chuck rocks at him while he sinks into his imagined reality.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Leonardo

[Rlyeh]

"the brain in a jar"

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

So you can verify it? Because face it, thats what science is all about.

Please go and look at the brain in the jar (or vat) thought experiment, its all about the mental perception of "outside" reality. By its very nature it is solipsistic.

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

Tell him that its ok, because some kook has proven the quicksand (and matter) doesn't really exist. Edited April 15, 2012 by Rlyeh

[White Crane Feather]

Make sure the rope hits him - so he is jolted back into the actual reality that exists for both of you. Either that or you could simply sit there and chuck rocks at him while he sinks into his imagined reality.

Hehe

[White Crane Feather]

Look, fundamental reality boils down to information processes. A binary code. A wave being the 0 and a particle being the 1 ( or the other way around, it dosn't matter). Everything is encoded in this fashion. All subatomic particles behave this way. The act of measurement changes the code or flips the switch. If there are no switches being flipped information cannot be generated. The question is who or what is doing the flipping if the switch. Not interaction with detectors ( the slit detectors are left on while the information is erased in the entangled twin). This fact shows that it's purely an information game particularly the fact that the information is erased after the photon hit the back detector, yet the photons clearly display interfearance. This means that the this information process is even MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN SPACE OR TIME.

Materialism is DEAD. fundamental reality has nothing to do with material, time, or space... It's binary information.

So far only measurement has the ability to flip the switch. The question is who or what is measuring and, when the universe itself was a subatomic probability wave, who or what measured then.

There is only one answer. It measured itself. Self measuring is the crux of concousness. Measurement is more fundamental than the code. the ability to measure preceded the universe before time, space, or stuff. there is no way around it.

Now people can go on believing that a non spacial, non temporal, non material condition of perfect order capable of self measurement that leads to a universe with at least one example of conciouse beings is not conciouse. But let's face it, it's an unsupported opinion. A faith, a beleif, a hope ( for some). The devil ( or god) is in the details. It's much more logical to consider conciousness than wacky ideas about everything comeing from nothing at all.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Seeker79

[Landry]

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.

Incorrect. "Matter" as you apparently conceive it - the Newtonian idea of matter is obsolete. If you're still trying to make that argument you're about a century out of date.

What is matter then? What is it composed of? You don't accept the modern science. What's your idea?

Take note of my "signature". That's why it's there.

[Rlyeh]

Look, fundamental reality boils down to information processes. A binary code. A wave being the 0 and a particle being the 1 ( or the other way around, it dosn't matter).

That analogy doesn't work, a bit is never 0 and 1 at the same time, however according to the wave function everything has a wave.

Everything is encoded in this fashion. All subatomic particles behave this way. The act of measurement changes the code or flips the switch. If there are no switches being flipped information cannot be generated. The question is who or what is doing the flipping if the switch. Not interaction with detectors ( the slit detectors are left on while the information is erased in the entangled twin). This fact shows that it's purely an information game particularly the fact that the information is erased after the photon hit the back detector, yet the photons clearly display interfearance. This means that the this information process is even MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN SPACE OR TIME.

Is it really that to hard to read the scientific paper? The erasure is the set up of the damn experiment. We've been over this already. Both the photons are detected by the detectors mere nanoseconds a part, so don't use that crap there is no interaction.

Without space-time there is no information.

Please don't follow Landry's discussion methods that involves regurgitating youtube kooks to make up for her lack of comprehension skills.

There is only one answer. It measured itself. Self measuring is the crux of concousness. Measurement is more fundamental than the code. the ability to measure preceded the universe before time, space, or stuff. there is no way around it

Only because you're too lazy to read anything that goes into details.

Decoherence doesn't care about consciousness.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Landry]

Look, fundamental reality boils down to information processes. A binary code. A wave being the 0 and a particle being the 1 ( or the other way around, it dosn't matter). Everything is encoded in this fashion. All subatomic particles behave this way. The act of measurement changes the code or flips the switch. If there are no switches being flipped information cannot be generated. The question is who or what is doing the flipping if the switch. Not interaction with detectors ( the slit detectors are left on while the information is erased in the entangled twin). This fact shows that it's purely an information game particularly the fact that the information is erased after the photon hit the back detector, yet the photons clearly display interfearance. This means that the this information process is even MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN SPACE OR TIME.

Materialism is DEAD. fundamental reality has nothing to do with material, time, or space... It's binary information.

So far only measurement has the ability to flip the switch. The question is who or what is measuring and, when the universe itself was a subatomic probability wave, who or what measured then.

There is only one answer. It measured itself. Self measuring is the crux of concousness. Measurement is more fundamental than the code. the ability to measure preceded the universe before time, space, or stuff. there is no way around it.

Now people can go on believing that a non spacial, non temporal, non material condition of perfect order capable of self measurement that leads to a universe with at least one example of conciouse beings is not conciouse. But let's face it, it's an unsupported opinion. A faith, a beleif, a hope ( for some). The devil ( or god) is in the details. It's much more logical to consider conciousness than wacky ideas about everything comeing from nothing at all.

It strikes me that these guys are willing to front just about any kind of nonsense to avoid taking known facts into consideration and building on them logically. I'm reminded of primary school and wayward children. It's as if insults, quips, and ridicule can stand in place of proven science. The winner? If I remember correctly it's whoever get's the last word. lol

[White Crane Feather]

That analogy doesn't work, a bit is never 0 and 1 at the same time, however according to the wave function everything has a wave.

Is it really that to hard to read the scientific paper? The erasure is the set up of the damn experiment. We've been over this already. Both the photons are detected by the detectors mere nanoseconds a part, so don't use that crap there is no interaction.

Without space-time there is no information.

Please don't follow Landry's discussion methods that involves regurgitating youtube kooks to make up for her lack of comprehension skills.

Only because you're too lazy to read anything that goes into details.

Decoherence doesn't care about consciousness.

It dosnt matter how far you move the erased beam, it could be across the galaxy and the affects would be the same. Don't you get it , that this is the very effect that baffles scientists. Nano seconds years it dosnt matter. In Any experiment that we can produce using light it's only going to be fractions of seconds. Even if we stretched the experiment to 186,000 miles, we will only have a second long difference. An hour 700,000,000 miles. You are only proving now that you don't understand the results of the experiment.

My analogy works just fine subatomic particles are never waves and particles at the same time they behave either like one or the other depending on measurement.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Seeker79

[White Crane Feather]

It strikes me that these guys are willing to front just about any kind of nonsense to avoid taking known facts into consideration and building on them logically. I'm reminded of primary school and wayward children. It's as if insults, quips, and ridicule can stand in place of proven science. The winner? If I remember correctly it's whoever get's the last word. lol

Yes there seems to be a fundamental gap in understanding of the results of the experiments. Accepting any wacky interpretation just to avoid the obvious. I'm reminded of fundamental religionists, that completely and utterly believe what their religious teacher says because they are the authority and anyone who contradicts is not only wrong, but ignorant, and subverted by other forces.

It really is the very definition of dogma.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities."

Which makes me wonder if our scientific institutions are more political than scientific. I know they dont want to be, but just like the experiment, the animal is impossible to seperate from the process.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Seeker79

[Leonardo]

Yes there seems to be a fundamental gap in understanding of the results of the experiments.

I would agree with that, but the gap is with those who are pressing for the non-materialist world-view in light of the results.

The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment relies on the use of entangled photons to be detected at various detectors - there is an example on the Wiki page.

This is the pertinent paragraph...

There is never any which-path information determined directly for the photons that are detected at D0, yet detection of which-path information by D3 or D4 means that no interference pattern is observed in the corresponding subset of signal photons at D0.

Because the photons are entangled, and because those idler photons detected at D₃ and D₄ have which-path information, then the signal photons corresponding to those idlers must also have which-path information and so not show an interference pattern at detector D₀.

This result is interpreted thus: because the signal photons hit D₀ before they hit the other detectors, and the which-path of all photons detected at D₀ is unknown, then the detection of the D₃ and D₄ idler photons changes the result of the D₀ entangled signal photons. This is the 'delayed choice eraser'.

But this interpretation is not necessarily true.

The result could be interpreted to show that the which-path information is present in the entangled photons before they are detected. This would be a set-back for the "the quantum particle exists in superposition"/nonmaterialism crowd, because it would indicate the object already has discrete properties before being measured/observed/detected.

By basing the interpretation of the result experiment on one interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - that quantum objects exist in superposition - the experimenters have introduced an observer bias. The truth is there is more than one interpretation of the results possible.

[Leonardo]

*sorry, went to edit my previous post but apparently it 'timed-out' before I finished*

Edited April 15, 2012 by Leonardo

[White Crane Feather]

I would agree with that, but the gap is with those who are pressing for the non-materialist world-view in light of the results.

The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment relies on the use of entangled photons to be detected at various detectors - there is an example on the Wiki page.

This is the pertinent paragraph...

Because the photons are entangled, and because those idler photons detected at D₃ and D₄ have which-path information, then the signal photons corresponding to those idlers must also have which-path information and so not show an interference pattern at detector D₀.

This result is interpreted thus: because the signal photons hit D₀ before they hit the other detectors, and the which-path of all photons detected at D₀ is unknown, then the detection of the D₃ and D₄ idler photons changes the result of the D₀ entangled signal photons. This is the 'delayed choice eraser'.

But this interpretation is not necessarily true.

The result could be interpreted to show that the which-path information is present in the entangled photons before they are detected. This would be a set-back for the "the quantum particle exists in superposition"/nonmaterialism crowd, because it would indicate the object already has discrete properties before being measured/observed/detected.

By basing the interpretation of the result experiment on one interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - that quantum objects exist in superposition - the experimenters have introduced an observer bias. The truth is there is more than one interpretation of the results possible.

Of course there is more than one inturpretation. there is more than one inturpretation in a car accident. Even if caught on Camara!!!

But you did pass the litmus test, that my well mannered opposition on this thread could not. The fact of the matter is that these experiments are using entangled photons and we don't fully understand entanglement. Using entanglement as a tool in such a sensitive experiment is well risky. If we don't understand our tool how can we understand the end results? This I think is the problem. But one thing is for sure.., entanglement has affects that bypass this universe. Entangled photons are connected in a way that does not work through normal spacetime. Wether they are oposite endpoints or peeks of a single wave, or synchronistically rotating around a curled up dimention, we may never know. Possibly can't know.

[Landry]

Yes there seems to be a fundamental gap in understanding of the results of the experiments. Accepting any wacky interpretation just to avoid the obvious. I'm reminded of fundamental religionists, that completely and utterly believe what their religious teacher says because they are the authority and anyone who contradicts is not only wrong, but ignorant, and subverted by other forces.

It really is the very definition of dogma.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities."

Which makes me wonder if our scientific institutions are more political than scientific. I know they dont want to be, but just like the experiment, the animal is impossible to seperate from the process.

The power and influence of ideological dogmatism is not to be underestimated - and yes there are profound connections with politics (but that's an issue in itself). Scientific evidence and it's practical results in this case were unexpected by dedicated materialists and even now that we know scientifically that there is no material essence to be found in "matter" - the next reasonable question seems not to offer itself to the materialist mentality. Instead of asking why we perceive (perception itself being an unavoidable attribute of consciousness) our experience of reality as we do - they reject the proven data that can provide answers within an expanded, logically consistent, conceptual framework. Instead there are inane questions about why can't we walk through walls, etc., perpetual denial, and other subterfuges. This is as good as any straightforward admission IMO that they will not accept any data a priori that does not support a materialist view.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Landry

[8th_wall]

This is ridiculous. It's like people are unnecessarily trying to complicate simple results.. :S

One thing that can be concluded with absolute certainty is that the quantum eraser experiment's implications aren't set in stone. However there's very strong evidence suggesting that the result are simply due to conditional probability and as a result backward correlation. I shall provide an example of conditional probability.

We have three cups and we shall call them A B and C. We also have two people person 1 and person 2.

All the cups are turned over and we place a 50cent coin under one of the cups. Person 1 knows where the 50cent coin is and person 2 doesn't know. After the cups are shuffled person 2 picks a cup at random. Person 1 then removes a cup that he knows doesn't have the coin under it. He asks person 2 if he would like to change his initial choice of cup.

The question is: Does person 2 have a higher chance of picking the cup with the coin under it after changing his answer?

This is one example of conditional probability. The point I want to make with this example is that when we change the experiment around (even though we don't directly interact with the information present) then depending on the experiment the odds of the results are changed. So even though the idler is detected first the which path information is already present at that point.

Edited April 16, 2012 by PsiSeeker

[White Crane Feather]

The power and influence of ideological dogmatism is not to be underestimated - and yes there are profound connections with politics (but that's an issue in itself). Scientific evidence and it's practical results in this case were unexpected by dedicated materialists and even now that we know scientifically that there is no material essence to be found in "matter" - the next reasonable question seems not to offer itself to the materialist mentality. Instead of asking why we perceive (perception itself being an unavoidable attribute of consciousness) our experience of reality as we do - they reject the proven data that can provide answers within an expanded, logically consistent, conceptual framework. Instead there are inane questions about why can't we walk through walls, etc., perpetual denial, and other subterfuges. This is as good as any straightforward admission IMO that they will not accept any data a priori that does not support a materialist view.

No argument here. Of course in certain states of consciousness, we can walk through walls can't we.... But that is another matter all together.

[Rlyeh]

The power and influence of ideological dogmatism is not to be underestimated - and yes there are profound connections with politics (but that's an issue in itself). Scientific evidence and it's practical results in this case were unexpected by dedicated materialists and even now that we know scientifically that there is no material essence to be found in "matter" - the next reasonable question seems not to offer itself to the materialist mentality. Instead of asking why we perceive (perception itself being an unavoidable attribute of consciousness) our experience of reality as we do - they reject the proven data that can provide answers within an expanded, logically consistent, conceptual framework. Instead there are inane questions about why can't we walk through walls, etc., perpetual denial, and other subterfuges. This is as good as any straightforward admission IMO that they will not accept any data a priori that does not support a materialist view.

Pot meet kettle.

I'm not sure if you're just a troll, or you really lack the mental faculties required for logical thinking. You've been asked for scientific research many times - you can't do it. You ignore the scientific papers that are presented. You ignore the other interpretations of QM. You fabricate unsupported accusations to justify your own denial.

If your purpose is to make yourself look a bigger hypocrite than when you arrived here, you've succeeded.

[Rlyeh]

Yes there seems to be a fundamental gap in understanding of the results of the experiments. Accepting any wacky interpretation just to avoid the obvious. I'm reminded of fundamental religionists, that completely and utterly believe what their religious teacher says because they are the authority and anyone who contradicts is not only wrong, but ignorant, and subverted by other forces.

Sounds like someone you know Seeker79? Someone who refuses to provide the research papers and rather appeal to authority who supports a wacky interpretation?

Oh, you have a bit of a brown smudge on your nose.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Rlyeh

[bmk1245]

[...] Historically, ground-breaking scientific progress is made by complete shifts - from one dominant paradigm to another.[...]

Making stuff up (as you do) and above quote are quite different things

[...] 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.[...]

If brain not connected, all talks about experiment in question are meaningless. If brain is fed by "computer" with information about experiment and experimental details, it would come up with the same conclusion: "consciousness causes collapse" is BS, although it may think "consciousness might caused collapse".

[...]

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. [...]

I'm shocked... Wait a sec... Are you saying telekinesis is fantasy as well?

[...]You really should watch the entire video. My link

You owe me 1.5 hour of my life wasted.

Anyway, Joseph Silk said quite nicely

Others would prefer to argue that such multiple universes are not necessarily real.

One quantum view asserts that reality requires an observer. Even this seems rather

odd to some physicists. Such a viewpoint brings in consciousness as part of the

definition of reality. There are physicists, such as Roger Penrose, who have argued

that some as yet unknown physics may be required in order to understand

consciousness. As yet there is certainly no indication that consciousness even lies

within the realm of physics. Nor, to be fair, is their any indication that it does

not. However, my own view is that enlightenment will come, some day, via the science

of biophysics. No mystical effects will be needed. Consciousness is acquired just as

a newborn baby or even embryo develops a functioning brain. The closest attempts to

combine consciousness and quantum physics are found in the almost mystical concept

of hidden variables, due to quantum physicist David Bohm, that act as the observer's

ghostly all-pervading hands, which instantaneously pluck the measured state from the

myriad of alternative forms. Here, if not before, is where metaphysics and science

begin to overlap. Once the scientists dabble in mysticism, there is no stopping the

philosophers, the theologians, and the cohorts of amateurs, with their own pet

theories, who are clamouring to breach the gate to cosmology. Indeed, the vast

majority, as exemplified by the success of astrology columns in the press, would

question the credentials of the tiny minority of scientists to make any such value

judgements. Who are we scientists to say whether quantum weirdness has anything to

do with reality? I beg to differ. It seems to me that a solid training in science,

and especially in physics, does give one enough perspective to discern reality from

myth, albeit dimly.

link, page 175

[Rlyeh]

http://moonflake.wor...antum-quackery/

"Historically, all this quantum flapdoodle began with Niels Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics, the famous Copenhagen Interpretation, and Erwin Schrodinger's response to it, the even more famous Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. Most people interpret these to mean that all reality is interconnected, including the human mind, and that the conscious observer is able to affect reality by will alone. Some take it even further and take it to mean that we actually create reality with our thoughts.

There are of course serious problems with this extrapolation. The biggest issue of all is that the Copenhagen interpretation is almost universally misquoted by non-physicists to mean that the presence or actions of a conscious observer are what is required to collapse the waveform. This is rubbish. What is specified in the interpretation is that the act of measurement collapses the waveform. The reason for this is simple and obvious when we measure something in a laboratory, we have to interact with it. There is no way to measure something without it coming into contact with another particle. In doing so, the system is altered. There is nothing mystical about this. Perhaps the reason people don't intuitively understand why measurement at a particle level has such an effect is because in the world we are used to, measuring something doesn't change it. When the cop on the side of the road measures your car's speed with a radar gun, the speed of your car is not noticeably affected by the few electromagnetic waves that bounce off it and back to the gun. But on the quantum mechanical scale, the equivalent measurement would involve smashing another car into your car, seeing where the two cars end up, and using that to calculate your car's speed before the smash.

Secondly, the Copenhagen Interpretation is only one of the many interpretations of quantum mechanics, and was offered up 80 years ago. Quantum Quacks tend to ignore all other interpretations and advances in the thinking of quantum theory since then. This is of course a common thread in mysticism, which for some reason claims that ancient knowledge is better than any knowledge that came after it. Why they aren't all driving around in horse-drawn carriages and dying of small pox is a mystery to me.

"

Edited April 16, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Leonardo]

There are of course serious problems with this extrapolation. The biggest issue of all is that the Copenhagen interpretation is almost universally misquoted by non-physicists to mean that the presence or actions of a conscious observer are what is required to collapse the waveform. This is rubbish. What is specified in the interpretation is that the act of measurement collapses the waveform.

That is also a misinterpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

All CI does is predict the wavefunction of the quantum object/property does not survive measurement. It does not explicitly predict that measurement has any physical effect on the mathematical wavefunction - because CI does not state the wavefunction has any physical reality. It is a mathematical description of all the states of the quantum object/property prior to measurement, but it does not describe the actual object or property prior to measurement.

Read this...

Complementarity is first and foremost a semantic and epistemological reading of quantum mechanics that carries certain ontological implications. Bohr's view was, to phrase it in a modern philosophical jargon, that the truth conditions of sentences ascribing a certain kinematic or dynamic value to an atomic object are dependent on the apparatus involved, in such a way that these truth conditions have to include reference to the experimental setup as well as the actual outcome of the experiment. This claim is called Bohr's indefinability thesis (Murdoch 1987; Faye 1991). Hence, those physicists who accuse this interpretation of operating with a mysterious collapse of the wave function during measurements haven't got it right. Bohr accepted the Born statistical interpretation because he believed that the ψ-function has only a symbolic meaning and does not represent anything real. It makes sense to talk about a collapse of the wave function only if, as Bohr put it, the ψ-function can be given a pictorial representation, something he strongly denied.

source

Bohr who, along with Heisenberg, Born and others, formulated the CI actually denied there was any 'collapse of a wavefunction' in the observation of a quantum phenomenon.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Leonardo

[JayMark]

Funny to see all those people so strongly dismissing the possibility of an interaction between mind and matter. I'm not saying you are all wrong or anything but I can hardly see how you can talk as if everything is already proven (no interaction between mind and matter). I'm not necessarly talking about wave-function collapse here but the overall idea that mind and matter could interact or simply be a whole, like I (and others) beleive.

How can we prove this out of any doubt in any/every situation when we don't even know how consciousness work or if you prefer; how it is generated from brain activity alone? From what I understand, our current understanding of the way the brain works and influences our awarness is understood through classical physics, not quantum. And from what I've also read, the more we try to look at the whole brain/consciousness mystery from a quantum perspective, the more confusing it gets.

Now how can we prove this out of any doubt in any/every situation when we don't even know what all fundamental particles are made of (strings for instance)? From what I understand, we have a lot more to discover in order to be able to determine what is driving everything at the most fundamental level.

So globally, how can we prove that two relatively poorly understood mechanisms (matter and consciousness at the very fundamental level) do not interact with eachother? Maby we simply haven't figured out everything yet now have we?

Maby they do interact but simply in a way that would make it seem like it dosen't from our current perspective. Maby we are simply not looking at all this the right way because science at the base chose not to integrate consciousness in their interpretations (or however you want to formulate it). Maby we do because we think everything is purely physical and that consciousness is the result of matter, not the oposite.

We all say that matter exists because we can see, smell, hear, taste and touch it at the very base. But at the same time, we know that these raw informations (5 senses) are converted into electro-chemical activity and that it somehow "makes up" consciousness. As said, the way consciousness is "generated" is still unknown just like the way matter/energy is generated from scratch.

How can matter generate the very thing that makes us actually see this same matter exactly the way we do? Unless matter is not really what we think it is. There's in my opinion a diffrence between what we see and what is really up there. The only thing in-between is consciousness and we don't know how it works.

We are trying to figure out how matter can make up consciousness but at the same time we know that consciousness is making us see matter this way. Are we trying to understand then how matter makes itself literally look at itself in such a way? All that done by particles that only follow the laws of physics? If matter makes up consciousness that's quite what it means now does it? Dosne't make sense to me if it is the case.

An other way of seeing it could be that we basically are trying to understand why we see things like this for instance by exactly looking at them like this. Like saying; "Hey, let's look at the brain to understand why we see the brain this way. Wait..."

My three last paragraphs may not make sense but it's very hard for me to put it into words.

My thoughts. I'll add more later.

Peace.

[Rlyeh]

That is also a misinterpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

All CI does is predict the wavefunction of the quantum object/property does not survive measurement. It does not explicitly predict that measurement has any physical effect on the mathematical wavefunction - because CI does not state the wavefunction has any physical reality. It is a mathematical description of all the states of the quantum object/property prior to measurement, but it does not describe the actual object or property prior to measurement.

I don't recall it saying it was a physical object.

[Rlyeh]

Funny to see all those people so strongly dismissing the possibility of an interaction between mind and matter.

Is there any reason to jump to conclusions that it does?

How can we prove this out of any doubt in any/every situation when we don't even know how consciousness work or if you prefer; how it is generated from brain activity alone? From what I understand, our current understanding of the way the brain works and influences our awarness is understood through classical physics, not quantum. And from what I've also read, the more we try to look at the whole brain/consciousness mystery from a quantum perspective, the more confusing it gets.

Lack of brain activity is a pretty good indication someone isn't conscious. Its worked so far.

Maby they do interact but simply in a way that would make it seem like it dosen't from our current perspective. Maby we are simply not looking at all this the right way because science at the base chose not to integrate consciousness in their interpretations (or however you want to formulate it). Maby we do because we think everything is purely physical and that consciousness is the result of matter, not the oposite.

The evidence in medicine and mental health seems to support consciousness being generated from the brain.

We are trying to figure out how matter can make up consciousness but at the same time we know that consciousness is making us see matter this way. Are we trying to understand then how matter makes itself literally look at itself in such a way? All that done by particles that only follow the laws of physics? If matter makes up consciousness that's quite what it means now does it? Dosne't make sense to me if it is the case.

An other way of seeing it could be that we basically are trying to understand why we see things like this for instance by exactly looking at them like this. Like saying; "Hey, let's look at the brain to understand why we see the brain this way. Wait..."

So if someone loses consciousness through chemicals affecting the brain or brain damage, wouldn't studying the brain be the logical path?

[Leonardo]

I don't recall it saying it was a physical object.

No, you didn't - but you didn't have to. When you stated this...

What is specified in the interpretation is that the act of measurement collapses the waveform.

...the implication was that the quantum object exists as a wavefunction before measurement or detection occurs, and that physical interaction 'collapses the wavefunction'. But the Copenhagen Interpretation does not state this.

The wavefunction only describes what states the quantum object may exist in. It does not describe it's actual existence. Hence, there is no 'wavefunction collapse' - except in a purely abstract, mathematical sense.

[JayMark]

Is there any reason to jump to conclusions that it does?

No. I'm just sharing my beleifs here. And I'm not trying to go against science because I also beleive it's right. My previous post may not have made sense to you, that's all.

All the facts you give me are right and I'm well aware of them. I'm not questioning the issues of how matter and the brain influences our awarness but rather the way in which this brain activity generates this awarness. That is still an unknown mechanism and where my beleif resides fundamentally.

Lack of brain activity is a pretty good indication someone isn't conscious. Its worked so far.

Agreed. But I also beleive, that there is a diffrence between consciousness as a whole and psysical awarness. That is the base of my beleifs.

The evidence in medicine and mental health seems to support consciousness being generated from the brain.

Agreed. That sustains my beleifs as well. Goes in the same line as my last sentence.

So if someone loses consciousness through chemicals affecting the brain or brain damage, wouldn't studying the brain be the logical path?

Yes. But that goes on the same line again.

Peace.

Edited April 16, 2012 by JayMark