Consciousness is fundamental to reality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-06-2015, 05:02 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
I think you are confused about the proper usage of consciousness. You should consider using the proper ones before making extraordinary claim about it without a shred of evidence to support it. You still have been incapable to present answers to the most basic questions about your (kinda crazy) hypothesis.

1) What is consciousness?
2) What can be conscious without a brain?
3) Why is it eternal?
4) How do you know it is?
5) How does it create matter and organise it?
6) What is the difference between detecting matter, observing matter interact, creating matter?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like epronovost's post
13-06-2015, 06:25 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(13-06-2015 04:11 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Matter applies on a macroscopic scale. The closer you look down to see what the core building blocks are, what its all really made of, you will not find anything there. The 'wave function' is only probability and possibility - potential existence.

Really ? Tell that the the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the "not find anything there" got converted to energy. You fucking moron.

(13-06-2015 04:11 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  and yet the entire scientific method hinges upon conscious observation. *\

And as I told you above and you IGNORED, at macro scales quantum effects are ignored, and brain are macro systems. You are making the FUNDAMENTAL ERROR here that all physicists in the entire word recognize, (and even Einstein could not reconcile) that QM is not yet unified into physics at the MACRO level. You are say you chose (ignorantly) to IGNORE this fact that every physicist in the world would love to solve, and get a Nobel. Instead of seeing the problem, you perversely and ignorantly chose to ignore what every physicist in the world knows cannot be done. Yet YOU chose to do it anyway.

(13-06-2015 04:11 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  There is no way you can ever eliminate consciousness from any system. Even if you try to hypothesis a theory about how this would be possible, such a theory is only there because consciousness thought it up! What a bizarre state of affairs science is in, trying to explain themselves out of existence.

No one is doing that except in your ignorant little mind. Aren't you just so *special*.

(13-06-2015 04:11 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Bain does not= consciousness. I have already given you examples of people still having consciousness when their brains were dead, this has been reported by tens of thousands of people who were pronounced clinically dead. And yet, you claim a dead brain produced this experience? How can a DEAD brain produce such an experience? All of the things you have presented are theories. The whole oxygen deprivation thing is just a theory and has not been proven to be true.

I never SAID "bain" *(sic) = consciousness. Consciousness ONLY emerges from brains and you have NOT ONE example of it arising otherwise. Your idiotic FALSE example (claiming NEAR dead brains are actually dead and are the SAME thing ... hahahahahahaha) which NOT ONE DOCTOR in the ENTIRE world would agrees with, is a complete piece of shit as support for your nonsense.

Your are such a loser. Give it up and go get a real education.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-06-2015, 08:11 PM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2015 10:34 PM by ZoraPrime.)
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
I was wondering when quantum mechanics would be brought up here -_-

hooray for my first non-introductory post (/i mostly just lurk)

Let's get a few things straight. Quantum mechanics, as previous posters have pointed out, simply means the mechanics of the very small. The fundamental change is that the 'state' of a particle is described by a so-called wavefunction (or probability amplitude) that gives information about the particle; namely, it gives the probability of being in a certain eigenstate (eigen- is a prefix that means 'characteristic') upon 'observation;' this process is called the wavefunction collapse. Eigenstates are also called characteristic states or stationary states; I prefer writing eigenstates because it's shorter and generally what's used in a quantum mechanics class.

Obviously, it's the statement "[the wavefunction] gives the probability of being in a certain eigenstate upon 'observation'" of interest the OP is referring to, and I'll get back to it in a minute. Before I discuss that in gory detail, I want to clarify a few things. First, the fact that the wavefunction (or probability amplitude) was interpreted as a wave is mostly an artifact. It was Max Born who gave the modern interpretation to the wavefunction after Shroedinger already used it to solve the hydrogen atom; it was interpreted as a (somewhat literal) wave by de Broglie who was able to motivate an assumption used in the Bohr model of the atom. The details don't matter, just remember wavefunction gives you probability that you'll find a particle is at a particular position with a certain momentum etc. However, when we 'observe' the particle, it'll (momentarily) have a certain position and a certain momentum with an exact energy. Energy, in particular, after 'observation' has an exact value.

So now, let's move onto what Q.M. observation is. The fact that the observer is conscious is *not* important. We can see gamma rays, for example, from stars billions of lightyears away. Gamma rays are produced by a nuclear decay process; as you might expect, atomic nuclei are small and occur from a quantum mechanical process. In particular, when a particle collapses from an excited state down to a low energy eigenstate, it'll emit a gamma ray; that is the gamma ray is a direct result from the wavefunction collapse. Yet, the star is billions of light years away, and since no information can travel faster than the speed of light (a fact consistent with the special relativistic formulation of quantum mechanics), that process must have happened before life existed on earth. I can even let some radioactive substance decay and a geiger meter measure it, remove myself from the room, and view results on a computer. For all practical purposes, the geiger counter itself is the observer.

So why exactly are observations important anyway? In particular, all known particles in the universe are made of fundamental particles; but moreover, how fundamental particles interact is probabilistic (with the probability a certain interaction occurs, again, given by a wavefunction that eventually collapse). For example, let's consider an interaction between two protons. When a proton and proton interact, they may scatter off due to the fact they repulse each other; alternatively, a proton and proton can fuse together to form helium. The wavefunction of the proton-proton system is what gives the probability of which interaction occurs. However, the reason why observation is important fundamentally boils down to this logistical point: if you or an instrument is observing the system ('the observer'), that observer is part of the system. For example, suppose we want to examine an electron by probing it with light (or a photon). Whether or not we find an electron at point X and whether or we find an electron at point X and a photon in our instrument at point Y are two different questions (this is discussed on page 167 in Cox's and Forshow's 'The Quantum Universe' book, if you want more infromation). The reason why an observer plays the role simply boils down to the fact that in order to observe our system, we need to interact with it. Our interaction fundamentally changes the wavefunction. As such, the fact that an observer CAN influence the results at the microscopic level, when viewed in this light, is actually not a particularly interesting fact (how the system is influence, on the other hand, is interesting). No, this doesn't explain why the wavefunction collapse works, it simply motivates why we would expect observation of a quantum system to influence our results by making the simple point that probing our quantum system disturbs it.

In particular, this discussion fails to describe the specifics of how wavefunction collapse manifests--for example, why Nature loves certain discrete energies and not any old energy. We don't actually know; the nature of the wavefunction collapse is ultimately the strangest and most bewildering part of quantum theory. In the same way we don't know how life started but we know how life evolved, we don't know how the wavefunction collapses but we understand what that wavefunction collapse affects our universe. To stretch the analogy further, although we are not sure how life got started, we can still make some reasonably guesses to its nature (e.g., it started over 3.5 million years ago, it probably involved some chemical reactions, etc.); the above paragraph was doing just that. The fact that observations affects a quantum system is about as surprising as learning life started due to a chemical reaction; the real mystery is knowing how the wavefunction collapse precisely occurs (analogous to knowing what chemical reactions tarted life). Since we don't know the ins and outs of the wavefunction collapse entirely, there are many different interpretations of how the wavefunction collapse occurs and who the exact agent is. Nevertheless, nearly every scientists will agree that a non-conscious camera is just at good at 'observing' as is a human with a naked eye. This goes back to my first point: we can observe the gamma rays (i.e. photons) that is older than life itself--the wavefunction collapse must have preceded life. And although there are fringe interpretations (namely, the von Neumann interpration) that do argue consciousness is the agent involved in wavefunction collapse; I've never seen them taken seriously. Understand that these interpretations of quantum mechanics are just guesses--all interpretations of quantum mechanics are not seen as scientific per se because their answer cannot be resolved by experiment. In other words, just because something like the von Neumann interpretation exists doesn't mean that science, as an enterprise, has said that consciousness is prerequisite for reality; rather, it says von Neumann has said that consciousness is prerequisite for reality (or something to that effect).

My overall point is this. When looking at quantum mechanics, don't take the definition of observer too seriously; physicist's aren't entirely sure what does or doesn't qualify as an observer. My point, however, is that trying to argue that science (specifically quantum mechanics) suggests that consciousness is necessary for reality is a dead end, because anything related to quantum mechanics that even remotely relates to 'reality requires consciousness,' at best, an interpretation that is itself not science as the solution cannot be resolved by experiment. In other words, using quantum mechanics to support your position is a dead end.

Anyway, I probably gave this discussion more time than it's worth, but I figured I'd add my two cents. I'll leave everything else not relating to QM to everyone else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ZoraPrime's post
13-06-2015, 08:15 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
"I never SAID "bain" *(sic) = consciousness. Consciousness ONLY emerges from brains and you have NOT ONE example of it arising otherwise. Your idiotic FALSE example (claiming NEAR dead brains are actually dead and are the SAME thing ... hahahahahahaha) which NOT ONE DOCTOR in the ENTIRE world would agrees with, is a complete piece of shit as support for your nonsense."

Have you asked every single doctor in the ENTIRE world? How do you know this?

Anyways, why are you arguing with me? why does this argument even matter? You are just a stupid tiny fleck of stardust arguing with another fleck of stardust. YOu don't matter, i don't matter, so why do you even give a fuck you stupid little piece of shitLaugh out load??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 08:16 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
"Grandiose delusions (GD) or delusions of grandeur are principally a subtype of delusional disorder that occurs in patients suffering from a wide range of mental illnesses, including two-thirds of patients in manic state of bipolar disorder, half of those with schizophrenia and a substantial portion of those with substance abuse disorders.[1][2] GDs are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious theme. There is a relative lack of research into GD, in contrast to persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations. About 10% of healthy people experience grandiose thoughts but do not meet full criteria for a diagnosis of GD.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

mmhm1234,

I'm not posting this to make fun, in fact, I'm sure my wife would tell you that I'm at least mildly bipolar lol. I only ask you to consider the possibility that you are suffering from a delusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 08:19 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(13-06-2015 05:02 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I think you are confused about the proper usage of consciousness. You should consider using the proper ones before making extraordinary claim about it without a shred of evidence to support it. You still have been incapable to present answers to the most basic questions about your (kinda crazy) hypothesis.

1) What is consciousness?
2) What can be conscious without a brain?
3) Why is it eternal?
4) How do you know it is?
5) How does it create matter and organise it?
6) What is the difference between detecting matter, observing matter interact, creating matter?

The universe is obviously an artifact of an eternal thing-consciousness. Nothing will not create s thing, no ifs ands or buts. You can't get one free miracle and then explain the rest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 08:20 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(13-06-2015 08:16 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  "Grandiose delusions (GD) or delusions of grandeur are principally a subtype of delusional disorder that occurs in patients suffering from a wide range of mental illnesses, including two-thirds of patients in manic state of bipolar disorder, half of those with schizophrenia and a substantial portion of those with substance abuse disorders.[1][2] GDs are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious theme. There is a relative lack of research into GD, in contrast to persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations. About 10% of healthy people experience grandiose thoughts but do not meet full criteria for a diagnosis of GD.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

mmhm1234,

I'm not posting this to make fun, in fact, I'm sure my wife would tell you that I'm at least mildly bipolar lol. I only ask you to consider the possibility that you are suffering from a delusion.

Thanks matt. I really needed your input here
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 08:25 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
Prove a single one of these bullshit statements. Just one.

Also you use the word theory wrong, you don't have a theory you have made up nonsense that feels good to you. Science does not have to disprove a soul because it's not up to us to disprove something it's up to you, making the claim that one exists, to prove that it does you fuckwit. YOU have the burden of proof regarding the existence of a soul and you have provided no evidence thus the whole idea can be dismissed without investigation. You know fuck all about how science or reality works.
[/quote]

Wow! so angry! Ill stick around here until you guys can give me actual evidence that the brain creates consciousness. (which none of you have even remotely done).Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 08:35 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(13-06-2015 08:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(13-06-2015 05:02 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I think you are confused about the proper usage of consciousness. You should consider using the proper ones before making extraordinary claim about it without a shred of evidence to support it. You still have been incapable to present answers to the most basic questions about your (kinda crazy) hypothesis.

1) What is consciousness?
2) What can be conscious without a brain?
3) Why is it eternal?
4) How do you know it is?
5) How does it create matter and organise it?
6) What is the difference between detecting matter, observing matter interact, creating matter?

The universe is obviously an artifact of an eternal thing-consciousness. Nothing will not create s thing, no ifs ands or buts. You can't get one free miracle and then explain the rest.

If its so obvious then prove it.

Then prove how your conscious creator didn't require a conscious creator.

I'll await your half assed reply with no expectation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 08:35 PM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2015 08:39 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(13-06-2015 08:15 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  "I never SAID "bain" *(sic) = consciousness. Consciousness ONLY emerges from brains and you have NOT ONE example of it arising otherwise. Your idiotic FALSE example (claiming NEAR dead brains are actually dead and are the SAME thing ... hahahahahahaha) which NOT ONE DOCTOR in the ENTIRE world would agrees with, is a complete piece of shit as support for your nonsense."

Have you asked every single doctor in the ENTIRE world? How do you know this?

Anyways, why are you arguing with me? why does this argument even matter? You are just a stupid tiny fleck of stardust arguing with another fleck of stardust. YOu don't matter, i don't matter, so why do you even give a fuck you stupid little piece of shitLaugh out load??

I work in a hospital. I know many physicians. I live with one.
You are a total ignorant joke.
You can't defend anything you assert.
You don't understand even the most basic concepts in any of the sciences.

On the contrary. You *do* matter.
You're *special*.
Very very special. Facepalm
Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: