177 replies to this topic

[Rlyeh]

I think the biggest issue is the many interpretations, they all have solutions for these experiments. If one has been proven, why are well known physicists still working with the other interpretations? e.g. Hawking supports a variant of the MWI.

http://www.hedweb.co...ld.htm#believes



So to say the experiments prove one interpretation (which itself isn't widely supported) is premature.

Edited by Rlyeh, 11 April 2012 - 10:41 AM.

[Seeker79]

bmk1245, on 11 April 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

But thats exactly what you are peddling - RELIGION! Unsupported wacky blind beliefs, not to mention you are putting yourself in the center of the universe!

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.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 11 April 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

I think the biggest issue is the many interpretations, they all have solutions for these experiments. If one has been proven, why are well known physicists still working with the other interpretations? e.g. Hawking supports a variant of the MWI.

http://www.hedweb.co...ld.htm#believes



So to say the experiments prove one interpretation (which itself isn't widely supported) is premature.

Nice. Well some common ground finally. We have not been saying that the experiments proove one interpretation... Both Landry and I have been saying that the experiments disprove One.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 11 April 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

We have not been saying that the experiments proove one interpretation...

That does proved mean in this sentence?
"The experiments proved that the conscious awareness of the experimenters was indeed the cause of whether or not a probability wave or a "particle" was observed / recorded / measured."

That interpretation is called "consciousness causes collapse".
If proved means what I think it means, "consciousness causes collapse" has been proven and all the others that don't require consciousness has been disproven (ie Copenhagen, MWI).

Quote

Both Landry and I have been saying that the experiments disprove One.

And which interpretation have you disproven? The Copenhagen interpretation? Many worlds? Consistent histories? etc, etc.
http://en.wikipedia....antum_mechanics

Edited by Rlyeh, 11 April 2012 - 01:36 PM.

[JayMark]

I can't help but still think that consciousness is the source of everything.

I do think it collapses the wave-function but maby not simply in the act of measurment itself like most people refer to. It might be done another way.

For me, the whole universe would make no sense if consciousness wasen't at the heart of it.

I don't think this universe came out of nothing and that the laws of physics have just randomly be setted with such precision out of the blue. There is something very deep about it.

Think what you want but it is impossible to disprove the possibility that consciousness might be more than we think of. I mean, more than brain activity.

My thoughts.

Peace.

Edited by JayMark, 11 April 2012 - 01:30 PM.

[JayMark]

Rlyeh, on 10 April 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

The same could be said, how does physical matter suppress or cause loss of consciousness?

Allright. It'll be hard to put into english words but here.

I think the anwser lies in the way consciousness works. Our physical awarness is, in my opinion, only a "sub-part" of consciousness that is attached and entitled to this universe.

The "machine" that processes physical informations into what we call reality is, of course, the brain. But I think that the brain itself is not the absolute source of consciousness. It encodes informations, activates whatever part needed and then consciousness "reads" the information and make up reality.

But it also acts as a two-way "computer". It encodes raw informations (5 senses) which is converted into reality in consciousness and whatever thoughts and emotions emerges in consciousness also act on the brain and on the body. Just like fear can produce a physical reaction, and love etc.

So yes, physical matter can cause a loss of consciousness but that would be a loss of "physical consciousness". It dosen't mean that your consciousness just collapses and dissapeare, just the part that is bound to your physical body which in turns is bound to this world.

So in all, I just think that this is how we collectively designed this universe and the way we would integrate it. So at the very base, all this is a mere projection of consciousness but we designed a load of mechanics that manage it all.

That's the gist of it. Hope you get it.

My thoughts.

Peace.

[Rlyeh]

JayMark, on 11 April 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

Allright. It'll be hard to put into english words but here.

I think the anwser lies in the way consciousness works. Our physical awarness is, in my opinion, only a "sub-part" of consciousness that is attached and entitled to this universe.

The "machine" that processes physical informations into what we call reality is, of course, the brain. But I think that the brain itself is not the absolute source of consciousness. It encodes informations, activates whatever part needed and then consciousness "reads" the information and make up reality.

But it also acts as a two-way "computer". It encodes raw informations (5 senses) which is converted into reality in consciousness and whatever thoughts and emotions emerges in consciousness also act on the brain and on the body. Just like fear can produce a physical reaction, and love etc.

So yes, physical matter can cause a loss of consciousness but that would be a loss of "physical consciousness". It dosen't mean that your consciousness just collapses and dissapeare, just the part that is bound to your physical body which in turns is bound to this world.

So in all, I just think that this is how we collectively designed this universe and the way we would integrate it. So at the very base, all this is a mere projection of consciousness but we designed a load of mechanics that manage it all.

That's the gist of it. Hope you get it.

My thoughts.

Peace.

So what is the other part of the consciousness when its not um.. conscious?

If we designed the universe, shouldn't collectively we then be aware of everything?

[JayMark]

Rlyeh, on 11 April 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

So what is the other part of the consciousness when its not um.. conscious?

The other part would be (for me) the collective unconscious.

So it would go somehow like this:

Unconscious --> Subconscious --> Conscious

Unconscious: Collectivity, collective consciousness, spirit
Subconscious: Non-physical individual consciousness, the inner-self, the soul
Conscious: Physical individual awarness, the brain, the body

So they are all part of a "global" consciousness, only on diffrent levels. Some call it (physical consciousness) the "3^rd level of consciosuness". Second being "lower" lifeforms (animals, plants etc.) and first being the mineral world. Fourth level being the soul (subconscious, inner-self), fifth being the collective (spirit) and so on up until Source.

Quote

If we designed the universe, shouldn't collectively we then be aware of everything?

Very good question.

I think we simply aren't because we forget all of this during birth (physical incarnation). The topic about "the 10 rules of life" sums a bit what I also think about it. Now why we forget? I would say simply to evolve. Evolution is done through experimentation. Positive ones as much as negative ones. We come here to gain experience in a way we also have fully designed. If we knew about everything at birth, there would be no purpose (to my eyes) to life because there would be nothing to discover or learn. Our world is driven by transmission of knowledge, studies, experiements, discoveries and the desire to always go beyond and expand is fundamental. That is exactly what's making my life so interesting.

There are some models that talk about spiritual evolution. I'm no big fan of astrology but I find some sense in the definitions of "astrological ages". Another nice model is the pyramidal "evolution of consciousness".

People are standing up more and more and demand justice, peace and solidarity. Out of this crisis will either emerge great wisdom and change of simply more suffering and death. That's pretty much what we are facing now. Our greed and individualism have brought us there. Not necessarly a bad thing as far as evolution is concerned. That's my own little personal "2012".

My thoughts.

Peace.

[JayMark]

Here is a nice page I have found that talks about consciousness. It comes from the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy.

They discuss for instance the matter about wave-function collapse and conscious acts. And many others.

So far, a lot of the stuff in there is related to my own views about it. That's great.

Quantum Approaches to Consciousness

Edited by JayMark, 11 April 2012 - 03:59 PM.

[Rlyeh]

JayMark, on 11 April 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

So they are all part of a "global" consciousness, only on diffrent levels. Some call it (physical consciousness) the "3^rd level of consciosuness". Second being "lower" lifeforms (animals, plants etc.) and first being the mineral world. Fourth level being the soul (subconscious, inner-self), fifth being the collective (spirit) and so on up until Source.

So according to this every thing is conscious?

[JayMark]

Rlyeh, on 11 April 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

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, 11 April 2012 - 05:08 PM.

[bmk1245]

JayMark, on 11 April 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

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.

[bmk1245]

Seeker79, on 11 April 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

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.

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.

[Rlyeh]

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, 12 April 2012 - 10:08 AM.

[PsiSeeker]

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, 12 April 2012 - 12:51 PM.