Consciousness is fundamental to reality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-06-2015, 08:36 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(13-06-2015 04:14 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Are you saying that QM is false?
No he is saying your version of QM is false and it's demonstrably so. There is no credible scientist or peer reviewed science that states that matter does not exist. You are making that up from whole cloth, you are lying.

You are welcome to provide links to peer reviewed studies stating, in those words, that matter does not exist. Your claim is not a part of established QM and everyone here knows it. We are not interested in entertaining your delusions or your lies.


(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  What i presented is fact, and I'm sorry you couldn't understand it.
Quantum Mechanics is a fact your statement is not. Scientist studying and publishing material on QM understand QM far more then you do and they UNIVERSALLY DISAGREE with you. The failure to understand is yours, not ours. You are welcome to provide links to peer reviewed studies stating, in those words, that matter does not exist.

(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  There is no matter, only potentiality-potential electrons, but there is in fact no matter until it is observed.
Repeating a stupid baseless claim that has already been rejected while continuing to provide no evidence, justification, or support in the scientific community does not make it more believable. We are not interested in your delusions or your lies.

(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Modern science doesn't like plugging consciousness into the equation
Except that we have multiple fields of modern science devoted wholly to the study of the brain, how it works, and to consciousness. Now you are just being fucking stupid and not thinking your bullshit through before you vomit it onto your keyboard.

Also "lol conspiracy" is fucking tedious mate. Grow up.

(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  ....because this view of QM entirely refutes the mechanistic universe
YOUR view is irrelevant because it is not based on anything outside of your personal delusions and incalculable stupidity. QM is LITERALLY the investigation of the mechanistic universe at the quantum level. You are actually trying to contort QM in to the literal opposite of what it is and it's fucking hilarious. It's like watching a cat try and fly a plane, just because you can sit in the damn seat does not make you a pilot. QM does the exact opposite of what you think it does.
You are welcome to provide links to a single peer reviewed study showing that QM invalidates the material and mechanistic universe. But we both know you wont.


(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  and makes consciousness the creator of reality, determining where the particles will be, bringing order out of chaos.
Nope. We can prove empirically, and without interpretation, that particles were obeying the laws of physics long before any demonstrated consciousness arose. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and every field of science INCLUDING QM points to this.
The scientists who understand QM agree universally, though you are welcome to provide links to peer-reviewed studies that state otherwise.

(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  It seems to me that you and and many of the people who have been replying to my posts somehow think consciousness exists separate from you...
Consciousness exists as separate from you in the same way digestion does. It's an emergent property of an organ.


(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  ...as something that can be found measured and quantified.
We can alter consciousness radically by stimulating parts of the brain or by damaging it. The fact that we can do this not only means that it CAN be found, measured, and quantified but that we have actually begun to do it already. This is a point you refuse to address even though it's been brought up a dozen or more times.
If consciousness is not located in the brain how then are we able to change it by effecting the brain?

(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Well if somehow it is found- who was doing the finding?- CONSCIOUSNESS.
So fucking what asshole, I have GPS on my keys so that when I lose them I can find them with my phone...using GPS. GPS is finding GPS so therefor It's unfindable? Don't be fucking stupid. If we are using our consciousness to unravel consciousness that does not mean it's wrong if the results are repeatable and demonstrable and so far they have been exactly that.

Your big "mind blowing" question above is an irrelevant fart into a tornado. It's meaningless.

(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Its so simple and yet you can't seem to grasp it.
It's so simple so very very very simple, Hobo , so simple in fact that there is nothing to grasp on to. It's an irrelevant observation. Using consciousness to examine consciousness just speaks to the power of the brain and the mind. It does NOT refute the findings. At all.

(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  You're calling me a nut and while at the same time providing no real proof to strengthen your side of the debate.
We are calling you a nut because you ARE a nut. You don't understand what QM even IS but you choose to make up stuff based on your own personal incredulity and stupidity. You have literally, not figuratively but fucking literally, said things that are text book arguments from personal incredulity, not corrected any of them, and demand to be taken seriously while actively lying about QM and other things. You're not just a nut your also a dishonest asshole.
As for our side I think we can rest on "all of peer reviewed science on the subject" which all supports our position. We have no need to fortify our castle from a shit stain throwing the mental equivalent of bad words at our walls.


(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I did however provide at least some basis for my claims, you have provided nothing, except "well we think its in the brain, but we're not really sure".
1.) You did nothing of the sort because your delusions and ignorance of QM is not a "basis" of anything.
2.) We are sure actually shithead a thing we have said several times. Messing with the brain directly messes with conciseness. We have shown, tested, and demonstrated this in the lab. Fuck off you dishonest piece of shit.

(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I don't think you truly lucidly comprehend that consciousness does not exist apart from you.
...lolwut?
Every single person here has more or less said that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and by definition can not exist outside our body or apart from us. When I die my consciousness will cease to be. So congratu-fucking-lations the only thing you got right is to refute a point that no one was making. *slow clap*


(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Hence you cannot find it.
That does not follow at all dumb ass. The fact that it is a part of us does not preclude us from finding it. All you have done is declared it so. Which is pants-on-head-retarded because we already have started to map it, which is why we can alter it....by altering the chemistry of the brain...where it comes from.

(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Consciousness is life itself!
No biology is. Trees are not conscious but are alive. Go fuck yourself, stupid.

(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Our scientific method is incapable of understanding consciousness itself because consciousness cannot be objectified.
Wrong you lying spunk dumpster. We have already started to do just that. Not only that but if consciousness is a phenomena in reality then we absolutely can, and are, doing just that because that's the whole point of the scientific method you simple fuck.

(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Even if it could be, those objects are merely probability waves and nothing solid.
That's not what QM says.

(13-06-2015 01:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Consciousness is a mystery unlikely to be solved by science or philosophy or religion or anything but our own common sense--because it is the essence of existence, the sine qua non of reality.
Lol common sense. Common sense is such a poor method of determining anything that we developed the scientific method because of it's uselessness. You're just an anti-science lunatic, a fucking dishonest lier, and a person of boundless stupidity.

You're wrong plain and simple and until you provide some peer-reviewed studies or some actual fucking evidence you can fuck off, enjoy a nice hand grande salad, and stop polluting the internet with your stupid shit.



Hey man, thanks for that VERY long reply. It seems i hit home deep and really stirred an inner fire inside you. If its any consolation I read a total of two lines of your well thought out and long winded reply. LOL you're a dumb assLaughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 08:40 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(13-06-2015 04:22 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(13-06-2015 04:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  No, i believe I existed prior to being born, albeit in a much expanded state of awareness. So did you, just because you cognitively tell yourself "i am finite, i didn't exist for infinity prior to birth, and will cease to exist for infinity after death" does not in any way change your true infinite nature. Birth, was when the human perception of life began, death is a transition back to the domain in which our consciousness truly resides- an infinite domain (this is my theory anyway). Your life is a very brief perception, like looking into a microscope and perceiving the little micro bug world, death is akin to lifting your eye from the microscope. the entire system of life is designed so you can't 'peek' outside of the box and remember "oh, yea, its just a dream, I'm not Joe, or alice, or bob, with a name and an address, those were just characters in the play, i am an infinite being, i have always existed, and will always exist…for infinity" Any glimpse 'outside of the box' (such as in NDE states) is mostly forgotten because the human brain is for the most part, only capable of perceiving events in this finite universe. Part of the human perception is to be seemingly finite…what a savage exciting concept for an infinite being! so foreign to our true nature.

The concept of finding consciousness will always remain elusive. Its like looking in a mirror and trying not to see yourself. The existence of a soul is a belief that has been held by most people through all of human history. Those who don't believe in a soul assert that science can disprove that belief. So far it hasn't. To say you are sure that science will disprove the existence of a soul someday is, to put it bluntly, wishful thinking.

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.

I don't need a burden of proof. I know I exist. If you claim i don't exist and am the result of some spooky processes in the brain that science doesn't understand, then thats to bad. the burden of proof is on you to show how the brain generates consciousness because you're making the claim. Obviously consciousness and the brain are involved, but i have never seen any evidence indicating that the brain creates consciousness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 08:45 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(13-06-2015 08:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(13-06-2015 04:22 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  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.

I don't need a burden of proof. I know I exist. If you claim i don't exist and am the result of some spooky processes in the brain that science doesn't understand, then thats to bad. the burden of proof is on you to show how the brain generates consciousness because you have no proof.

It's "too bad", not "to bad" you ignoramus. (That's why we all know you plagiarized that post. You can't write worth a damn.)

"the burden of proof is on you to show how the brain generates consciousness because you have no proof." is a non-sequitur.

If the burden is on someone, it's there because they make a claim, not because they don't have something. When you get big, and mommy lets you out to go to school, you can take a logic class. Your brain may explode when it's introduced to logic, but whatever. Drinking Beverage Isn't it past your bed time ?

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
13-06-2015, 08:56 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
I don't need a burden of proof. I know I exist. If you claim i don't exist and am the result of some spooky processes in the brain that science doesn't understand, then thats to bad. the burden of ." is a non-sequitur.

If the burden is on someone, it's there because they make a claim, not because they don't have something. When you get big, and mommy lets you out to go to school, you can take a logic class. Your brain may explode when it's introduced to logic, but whatever. Drinking Beverage Isn't it past your bed time ?
[/quote]

It seems almost like scientists are now relying on semantics and loose language to somehow make it possible to map consciousness rather than ontologically objective science.

All present theories about a purely physical basis for consciousness are pure speculation and perhaps more accurately, shooting in the dark. Consciousness does not lie within the brain, our knowledge of the brain lies within
Consciousness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 09:02 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
Why can't we get a decent theist here that wants to have an honest discussion? All we get are lying, presupposing bullshit artists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
13-06-2015, 09:10 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(13-06-2015 08:35 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  
(13-06-2015 08:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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.

Le bump.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 09:23 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(13-06-2015 08:11 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  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's 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 last statement of interest the OP is referring to, and I'll get back to it in a minute. I want to clarify a few things. First, the fact that 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 interpretted as a (somewhat literal) wave by de Broglie who was able to motivate an assumption used in the Bohr model of the atom. The long-and-short of is this: wavefunctions aren't waves; they are interpreted as probability amplitude. The square (or 'modulus,' if you want to be pedantic) of the probability amplitude gives you the probability density that, along with another mathematical construct (quantum mechanical operators), can be used to find the probability a particle is at a particular position with a certain momentum etc. However, when we 'observe' the particle, it'll collapse to that position and to that momentum with a definite energy; and although it's an aside at the moment, the energy is often selected from a finite list of particles.

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; the gamma ray is a direct result from the so-called 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), 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.

So why exactly do physicists speak of observations anyway? Let's dig a little deeper into QM and look at its most advanced (i.e. most modern) formulation, and that is quantum field theory (or QFT for short). The main difference is that we begin looking at the key players in quantum mechanical processes; for now, we only need to no two fundamental particles: electrons and photons. The reason why observation is important fundamentally boils down to this logistical point: the question of whether or not an electron and electron interacts and 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). In other words, logistically, we need to have *something* interact with what we're measuring. The point is, however, is that we're not sure if the wavefunction collapse is caused by the observation, or if the wavefunction collapse itself effects the observation. The nature of the wavefunction collapse is ultimately the strangest and most bewildering part of quantum theory; and nearly whenever there's a discussion on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the nature of the wavefunction collapse is the most important. 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. And although there are fringe interpretations that do argue consciousness is the agent involved in wavefunction collapse; I've never seen them taken seriously. Understand interpretation is just a fanciful way of saying guess--all interpretations of quantum mechanics are not seen as scientific 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). Moreover, 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 that position is, 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.

Thanks for that.

If you could re-write it so that I can understand it, I'll give it a 'like'.

I was confused at "no two fundamental particles: electrons and photons"...

... and lost at "this logistical point: the question of whether or not an electron and electron interacts and whether or not we find an electron at point X and whether or we find an electron at point X"

Too much whether.

Cheers

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 09:29 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(13-06-2015 09:02 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Why can't we get a decent theist here that wants to have an honest discussion? All we get are lying, presupposing bullshit artists.

We used to get decent ones but now they've been deconverted.

The only ones left are the padded-cell brigade.

At the deconversion rate currently happening in The US of Murika, you'll have to start importing some from the middle east or you'll have no chew toys at all.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 09:43 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(13-06-2015 08:56 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I don't need a burden of proof. I know I exist. If you claim i don't exist and am the result of some spooky processes in the brain that science doesn't understand, then thats to bad. the burden of ." is a non-sequitur.

You are on drugs, right ?
Dodgy

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
13-06-2015, 10:14 PM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(13-06-2015 09:23 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Thanks for that.

If you could re-write it so that I can understand it, I'll give it a 'like'.

I was confused at "no two fundamental particles: electrons and photons"...

... and lost at "this logistical point: the question of whether or not an electron and electron interacts and whether or not we find an electron at point X and whether or we find an electron at point X"

Too much whether.

Cheers

Both those specific statements were typos; I apologize for that. Thanks for pointing that out.

I have made some minor changes (particularly the latter half), but I don't think I'll be able to rewrite the entire post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: