Will science ever explain consciousness?

That reference exemplifies an entangled double-slit experiment in an attempt to make more observations about the event. None of the data even remotely suggests that matter is conscious. When I asked for references, I was asking for the "hard evidence" that you are referring to.

That's not true. The interference pattern depends on the size of a physical structure because that determines if it can exist in more than one place simultaneously long enough to produce such a pattern. The double slit experiment can be reproduced with any number of small structures. Photons, electrons, atoms, and even 70-carbon atom buckminsterfullerines. The same behavior isn't seen for larger structures (ex. bullets) and the simple reason is that they do exists in multiple places simultaneously and they just collapse so fast that we don't have a means to detect the transitions. On the quantum level, all attempts to observe (that I am aware of) the specific location of a small multi-location particle result in collapse into a specific location (and I think this is what you were referring to). Why the multi-location and collapse events happen are the unknowns in current physics right now.

That's a very specific claim and please evidence for it.

You might be right. So, again please show me the hard evidence you spoke of. It should be a simple experiment:

definition: consciousness - *some definition resembling present day knowledge*
hypothesis: all matter is conscious
test design: how the test was performed and what are the controls?
test results: what were the results of the test
test conclusion: all matter is conscious because it consistently met the criteria for consciousness.

Just to cover my bases, I checked through the list of Nobel Prize winners and didn't find an entry for discovering all matter is conscious. I also checked the some current research work into double slit events and found no such hypothesis. Not even a speculation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the quantum earser experiment light clearly demonstates an awareness of when information is and isnt being held in relation to it. If light really isnt aware id be interested to hear a convincing explaination of how it achieves a perfect demonstration of being so.

Which i posted.

You dont think matter being conscious is worthy of even discussion/consideration in explaining this two way relationship between observer and observed?

Ah but we both know such an experiment would never be embarked apon, directly seeking proof for the consciousness of matter is still abit too risky for science. Its flying far too close to ideas that are percieved as being (usually quite wrongly) mystical and supernatural.
However that doesnt stop science from accidently stumbling apon evidence that it wasnt directly seeking.
And some quantum physicists can actually be candid enough at times to let on what they really think of quantum mechanics data.
"Bell's theorem...proves that quantum theory requires connections that appear to resemble telepathic communication."
--Gary Zukav
"Wave function, which operates through form, is closer to life and mind...The electron has a mindlike quality."
- david bohm
The common division of the world into subject and object, inner world and outer world, body and soul is no longer adequate.
~Werner Heisenberg.

Which doesnt suprise me, quantum research still has severe problems tackling the implications of its own data at times. But make no mistake the leading quantum phycists almost all think that basic matter is conscious, you just have to catch them alittle off guard to admit it.
Heres a great david bohm quote..
"everything material is also mental and everything mental
is also material, but there are many more infinitely subtle levels of matter
than we are aware of" (Weber, 1990, p. 151). The concept of the implicate
domain could be seen as an extended form of materialism, but, he says,
"it could equally well be called idealism, spirit, consciousness.
The separation of the two -- matter and spirit -- is an abstraction.
The ground is always one." (Weber, 1990, p. 101)

And heres an interesting paragraph from Authur Young which i think accurately summarises what ive been saying...

'Young sees the photon as the entry point for consciousness into the universe.
The reason for this is that the photon's apparent uncertainty cannot be
distinguished from the photon having freedom, choice, and/or freewill
[de Quincey]. Young's conclusion that the photon possesses choice is a
chieved through rational thought, "If velocity is the derivative of position
with respect to time, and acceleration is the derivative of velocity…
what is the derivative of acceleration?", the third derivative is control
[de Quincey, p.13]. Science clearly accepts first two derivatives. Yet,
when it comes to acknowledging the logical third derivative, control,
inquiry ceases. Why? Because this would undeniably mean that the photon
(a unique subatomic "particle") is conscious! Thus, Arthur Young postulates
a credible cosmology in which the quantum is consciousness. And, it
is solidly established upon rational deduction.'

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What's being clearly demonstrated is that photons can be popped into and out of superpositions if relationships are introduced that require or obfiscate their exact state.

What isn't happening is light showing sign of problem solving, knowledge, emotion, insight, desire, communication, etc. i.e. it's not meeting any requirements for what we understand of consciousness.

Maybe a question that would improve understanding is "can light not behave in a perfectly predictable way in this experiment"? The answer is clearly no which at a bare minium means it has no choice and no decision making capabilities.

Hard evidence is a specific hypothesis that matches a conclusion. That's not what was posted.

It's worth of discussion as an idea to exercise creativity and mental lattitude. Because reality hasn't shown any evidence that matter is conscious it's not a consideration for understanding reality; however, if someone want's to create a strong definition of consciousness and then test styrofoam against it then they are welcome to do so; although, I would speculate the results would be comical at best.

I don't think there is any risk to science. It's a process for finding truth. It has no opinions, no emotions, no cares. People who fund science are typically not willing to invest in researching ideas which don't appear bound to reality in any way. It's a waste of time and money trying to test hypothesis' such as invisible pink unicorns exist.

Very true, and if those pieces of evidence matter, people will pursue hyothesis surrounding them directly.

Opinions and speculation are just that. I wan't M-Theory to be true and speculate that it (or something close to it) is. That' doesn't make it true. I'll post some comments on some of the referenced quotes.

How could the quantum world resemble a 'telepathic' phenomena that has never been seen to exist? It's like saying "Bell's theory proves quantum theory requires connections that resemble fantasy".

No particular claims made here. Just opinion. Perfectly a-ok.

Not sure what's meant by the subject / object and inner world / outer world division. The body / soul division isn't something that exists in science... or specifically, 'soul' isn't something that has been shown to exist.

I don't believe that almost all leading quantum phycists share this opinion; however, I honestly don't care enough about the notion to ask you for poll as evidence. I'll add some more comments to the referenced quotes below though.

The first statement is ambiguous. It can have many meanings so I can't really say much about it. The second statement I partially agree with. There is evidence for different "levels" of matter and constructs that are matter-less. I don't agree that they are infinite. In fact evidence indicates that plank length might be the smallest possible point possible.

I agree, I don't think there is a seperation because 'spirit' doesn't seem to exist.

The 3rd derivative isn't control (his assertion is incorrect). It's "jerk" and the math shows it and relates it to known physics perfectly. What young's assertion does mean is that he finds the idea of the quantum world being conscious attractive enough to adjust his thinking to support it. Unfortunately for him, it came at the cost of flaw.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And how do the photos know when and when not to change their state? They need to be aware of when theyre being observed!
Therefore we can see that photons have awareness at a basic level. Is it really that hard to join the dots?

Sometimes conclusions are drawn way after the initial experiment, and sometimes the conclusions drawn bare little relation to the original hypothesis or what the experimentor was looking for. I would have thought that was a given in science, why do i get the feeling youre playing dumb simply so you dont have to consider a line of enquiry that doesnt appear attractive to you?

Stop degenerating everything to a lofty excersise in creative fantasy every time something comes up that doesnt appeal to your idea of how the world works.
Newslfash: your hang-ups about basic matter having awareness are your own, scientists within quantum mechanics are more than prepared to entertain these ideas are a serious exploration into how particles are able to switch between states.
If you want to curl up into a mentall ball everytime something comes up that you believe flies far too close to what you perceive as being mystical, fair enough, but thats not the scientific method.
Science is not, i repeat not; the anti-mysticm ideology you seem to think it is, youre just projecting your own ideals onto science and acting as if in doing so youre practicing it.
I do wish youd actually explain your own beliefs and ideas to me sometime, instead of constantly acting like you speak on behalf of the scientific community, then we might actually get somewhere in these conversations.

Tell me what you think directly, instead of projecting your beliefs onto science, and me having to untangle it all.

Agreed, the process doesnt care, but people will always hold the truth back with their ingrained biases and assumptions.
Thankfully for the scientific method though, people eventially die, and a new generation comes along without the hang ups that the previous generation had.

Whats the obsession with you people and pink-unicorns, at least make them blue sometimes...why do they always have to be pink!?!
Seriously though, i get the subtext, matter being aware is a pink unicorn, we might as well start sacrificing children to the god of fertility if we're going to start entertaing notions like that.

In time i have great faith that people will, you can only steal side-ways glances for so long, people will get tired of it eventially im sure.

Fair enough, but youre not even prepared to entertain this line of enquiry for even a second, i just want to know where the mental block thats stopping you is comming from.

All i see here is you trying to invent a reason not to consider any of these quotes, before even trying to consider them.

 

The question in itself might be flawed. Why would a photon have to know anything? It has 'x' relationships with the rest of reality and when 'x+n' or 'x-n' relationships are introduced, the laws of physics might collapse or multiply the state.

A bose-einstein condensate is the result of removing heat (to almost absolute kelvin) from matter. If you view the atoms of the condensate you will see they are all superimposed (i.e. observation doesn't make them collapse). Thought that might be an interestinig truth to know about.

And sometimes a conclusion has nothing to do with the data (which appears to be the case regarding photons being conscious). The idea is very attractive to me consequently; however, you are claiming it as fact and you have the burden of proving it accordingly.

Entertaining an idea is quite different than making an assertion of truth, and if a scientist want's to test if styrofoam is conscious then they are welcome to do so. Regardless this is very different from your assertion. You have explicitly stated that it is true matter is conscious. That is a claim and you have not provided hard evidence to support it. If you retract your claim and assert it as speculation, then you are not committing the idea to being fact and have no burden of proof. If you retain your claim of truth without the hard evidence then people will consider the claim fantasy and you a liar and / or delusional.

Consequently, I have no hang-ups about the idea of matter being conscious. Reality hasn't shown any evidence that this is the case, but if evidence is found then so be it. Reality is what it is. The hang-up I do have is when people firmly assert fantastic claims without fantastic proof. In all seriousness, if you had proof of your claim you would win the nobel prize overnight as it would be the biggest discovery of all time.

As far as my own 'beliefs' are concerned, I try to not exercise that process of accepting assertions as truth without consideration to evidence especially when it comes to the 'big' questions. For the purpose of our interaction on those 'big' question subjects, it would effectively mean I don't have beliefs. As far as speculation is concerned, I have quite a bit on many different 'big' questions. For example, I speculate that the reason why small particles (e.x. photons) can exist in multiple locations as once while larger particles can't (e.x. bullets) is because of gravity. I speculate that every piece of matter exists in multiple locations at once in any given moment but there isn't enough gravitational energy to sustain each permutation so they collapse into a single state. For small particles, there would be enough gravitation energy to sustain multiple permutations and when they collapse it's a result of a relationship of something else that would require greater gravitational energy to interact with. Again, it's speculation. It seems reasonable to me and I certainly cannot even begin to assert it as truth.

I agree, and it tends to be most ofeten a theist tactic that has unfortunatly retarded science for quite a long time consequently.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) and Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) are comical cult-classics born from the atheistic mindset. They are ellaborate fairlytales used to show equal validity (or lunacy) to any particular claim of 'God'.

The block is a result from you making a claim of truth without hard evidence. I am going to hold you responsible and accountable to your claim.

Come on, when some lunatic claims the 3rd derivative is control when it is clearly known to be something else (an utter contradication) how can I even take it seriously? I am certainly not going to consider statements of ambiguity either as it makes my thoughts incoherent. Lastly, if people inject words such as 'soul', 'spirit', 'god', 'telepathy', etc. arbitrarily into assertions if it were common knowledge that they are true, it's a big red flag that the assertions are founded in fantasy.

 

I think one interpretation of Young's two slits experiment is that the schroedinger probablity function is collapsed (to 1) by a conscious observer. I'm not sure many respectable physicists would go so far as to say that photons themselves were conscious. It might offend Occam's razor!

However, you could be referring to Liebnitz's idea of monads, which (he hypothesised) were like atoms, making up everything, but capable of simple perception and even memory. Rather scary to think of everything around you coming alive suddenly!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I agree with you 100% heliocentric when you say: "Science is not, i repeat not; [the] anti-mysticm ideology".

 

That would be an odd interpretation indeed considering the wave function collapses with the introduction of any observer... which is why I strongly speculate that introducing various relationships forces a collapse in a system that has enough energy to exist in multiple places at once for an extended period of time. Consequently, it would resolve the 'paradox' of schroedinger's cat problem. The contents of the canester would have a relationship with the canister and the state would definitively collapse.

I shudder at the notion of testing that hypothesis. It already presumes the existence of a 'soul' and 'god'.

 

The laws of physics dont collapse the state, the laws of physics just apply answers to what is collapsing the state and the mechanism by which this occurs.
Remember the universe has its own laws we just asbstract them into this thing called physics as a way of understanding whats going on.

That is interesting seems as if removing the heat stops the process of collapsing as it would useally occur (if i understand you right).

Im saying it provides a very simple, occam's razor style explaination, do i believe that matter is consciousness 100%? no, but then again i dont believe in anything with that level of conviction (bit of a nihilist like that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).
I just think its very very likely to be true and works out alot simpler than creating convoluted reasons not to consider it just because it all seems abit hocus pocus to a western 21st century mind.
What i want to really know though, is why youre so sure that particles arnt aware (and that this could never ever be the case) with such conviction that its not even worth entertaining as a explaination - despite some of the leading quantum physics thinking that it might be!

I provided evidence for it, and you wrote it off immediately because the hypothesis, or experiment objective didnt match the conclusion.

This dynamic could go on forever! (as im pretty sure youre aware) i provide evidence, you say 'nope thats not evidence' i provide a quote you say 'that doesnt even count as a speculation thats just fantasy'.
This is the scientific method being employed so you dont have to consider anything that doesnt take your fancy, youre using scientific procedure as a shield that will stop any new ideas getting through.

I think the hard evidence is there, i think you just never thought to see it like that because no-one ever told you too before.
Its really all about how experiments are framed and how we percieve them in relation to that, i could just as easily reframe the quantum slit experiment as 'how particles can show understanding/awareness of their environment and being consciously observed'.

Thats just where we differ, i dont see anything fantastic about my 'claim' im not entirely sure whats fantastic about it all really.

The proof i suspect is already there, someone just has to frame it in the right context so it appeals to people, not as easy as it sounds!

Same here, i dont really believe anything truth be told, although i do have some strong convictions and probably alot of assumptions as well that i try to weed out before they get out of hand and lead me towards making bad decisions.

I think thats pretty reasonable, the interaction of gravity in relation to mass has to be the main reason for why we see this behaviour in small particles but not in larger collections of matter.

Im pretty much with you all the way there, although im still intrigued by why a human being or measuring device can act as a collapser, and not say an a arbitary paper weight or lump of rock.
I think its fascinating beyond belief; by what process is a particle understanding the difference between an observer and a non-observational bystander?
I think once the mechanism is discovered it will spawn an almost entirely new branch of physics.

Forgive me but i really dont think this is actually where the block is, if id said 'i speculate with a high degree of certainty that quantum physics shows strong evidence to support the idea of basic awareness in basic matter' then i still think youd be talking about your pink unicorns and spaghetti monsters.

The degree of certainty i state it isnt go to change the fact that youre never going to consider it with any kind of seriousness. Now thats a claim i can make with total certainty despite being a nihilist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It doesnt matter if any or none of those words were used, you still wouldnt consider it because you think basic matter being aware is just weird.

 

You are correct and I'd have to ask whether the semantics were really that important to dispute? I could easly re-write the statement by substituting the laws of physics with the laws of reality.

That's what seems to be happening on the surface. When heat is removed, the constituents of the condensate stop vibrating (or get really close to stopping).

You should read your original assertion then which appears to be a statement of unadulterated truth.

Hey that's cool. I don't share your confidence in the idea, but so long as it's not an assertion of truth then so be it.

I simply haven't seen any evidence that they share a 1:1 correlation with consciousness. For example, can light choose not to collapse in the presence of an observer in normal circumstances (i.e. no super-cold environment)? Do photons call upon what they have learned and make better decisions? Do photons get lost in deep thought about the state of the universe? It's an attractive concept, but its just not credible.

You provided evidence for something, but thinking, learning, emotional particles was not it.

The scientific method makes a great BS detector I'll admit. If you had introduced the idea as a speculation rather than an assertion of truth, I would have probably just stated that I don't agree with your interpretation of the experiments results and we could have discussed our positions. Because it was introduced as an assertion of truth, I asked for the hard evidence and that wasn't provided.

Hard evidence would entail a strict description and definition of consciousness, a detailed experiment to test the hypothesis that (for example) cheese is conscious, and then the enumeration of that experiments results. Indirect hard evidence could work if the desription/definition parts were still there and the enumeration of results would directly support the 'new' (not original hypothesis).

You basically just asserted that you don't find it bizzare and extravagant that your chair might be contemplating a symphonic orechstration that would put mozzard to shame. That kernel of corn in my poop was consequently the universes leading M-Theorist.

If you suspect it's there then go find! Making it attractive might result in cheerleaders and believers, but in the end what matters is if reality agrees with you.

I would have never guessed you would say that.

It doesn't 'have' to be... but in my opinion it might be.

I might speculate that the reason would have to do with how the particle is absorbed, deflected, or translated with respect to all interacting gravitational fields. Beyond that I'd be grasping at straws. I don't see it as a particle comprehending anything and very much see it information in-spacetime behaving according to the laws of reality.

You might be right, and I am pretty certain it wouldn't have occured at the same point in the conversation and you might have seen alot more debate rather than requests for evidence.

With the information currently presented you are correct. If there was some compelling logic bound to some compelling observations of reality then it would be a different case. I can be influenced quite easily if reality appears to support a position.

IMO, the idea is just fantasy born of the human desire to embrace and invent the attractive. But that's just an opinion. If you really think this is the case then pursue it and if you're right you'll end up rich and famous + your nose hairs will appreciate you more than my carpet.

 

So, are you saying an inanimate detector collapses it? If Scroedinger's cat was a geiger counter (or a poison gas detector), isn't that just a larger indeterminate system until someone observes it?

We're getting into some heavy physics here, but my understanding is that a bose-einstein condensate is in a single quantum state - as the bosons have insufficient energy to adopt any but the lowest energy state. So, what states are you saying are superimposed?

Yeah, I think he was just daydreaming...

 

Well, when a non-living photon counter collapses the position of a photon in a double slit experiment, one has to consider the behavior.

Your understanding is correct (not exlusive of my assertion) and I honestly forgot about that aspect of BEC's. It's my fault for implying that superpositions are the only result of BEC's; therefore, I retract all such implications.

 

I assert truth probably in the same way you do, you might say,, 'gravity is the warping of space/time' and youd assert it as truth to make life easier, what you really mean is..
'this is so likely to be true by a high percentage, that its not really worth me
tagging on a little disclaimer on at the end of my assertion.'
When i speak truths thats how i intend them, if we want to be ultra picky about it then you could say i never speak the truth ever.

Why dont you think its a credible line of equiry? its credible enough for people who pioneered quantum physics, so i really dont see why youd think that.

Btw we're not talking about learnt behaviour/or higher cognitive functioning here. Those are tributaries/offshoots of consciousness. Im talking about very basic awarenss here (as i stated before), but awareness never the less.

I provided evidence for an awareness of ones surroundings and a reaction to it, which is obviously predetermined by some law of nature that we're not entirely sure about.
But to switch from one state or another the particles in question must understand the difference between being observed and not being observed. If you really think this is such an non-credible line of enquiry then fine, but how else does a particle understand, sense, become aware of, when it is being observed, without the ability to understand, sense, or become aware??

Dont you see the ever increasing absurdity of the path youre traveling down? you wont factor in awareness because it seems too freaky too you, and in doing so you leave yourself with no other explainations. I mean if you had an alternative explaination for how a particle can do a very convincing trick of being aware while actually not being so we might actually have something to debate here.

I can give you as much evidence as is humanly possible, what i cant do is help you see it.

Sounds like you just invented your own version of hard evidence on the spot so you dont have to consider what im asking you too.

An ant cant contemplate a symphonic orechestration neither can any lifeform other than a human as far as im aware.
Seems like you think only humans are conscious if your version of consciousness involves comprehension of abstracted human arts and ideas.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I suggest you update your definition of 'consciousness' its probably why we're no seeing eye to eye here.
I think youre basically confusing raw awareness with neo-cortex number crunching and complex abstracting.
Which to be fair even dan dennett does so i cant really hold you to that one.

Framing in the right context isnt about dishonest salesmanship or making the truth seem more appealing than it actually is, thats not really what im talking about.
Im talking about introducing a concept into a paradigm so that people wont feel weird and uncomfortable about it, all i really want if for people to feel ok with following lines of enquiry which they obviously feel uneasy about.

Whys that? just out of interest..

I see it as an interaction of information too, remember the quantum earser experiment? the particle could change states when they wiped out the information held about it.
Therefore the particle could demonstrate its ability to interact with and piece together abstract information that related to it. Hey maybe particles are starting to meet your human-based criteria of consicousness after all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To be rich and famous i have to disentagle alot of antique mental associations first like 'omg universe being aware = hippies, mystics, woodstock, psuedo-science'. That aint easy!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Consider it considered! I realise the "consciousness causes collapses" interpretation is too "woo woo" for most physicists, who prefer to keep themselves well out of the limelight and remain detached observers. I can see the advantages of the theory of decoherence!

I'm not totally convinced why you believe the "Bosenova" is evidence against the "CCC" interpretation, or indeed what implications it has for the "measurement problem"... Can you say more?

In fact I though this thread might be about emergent consciousness and brain, e.g. the Orch-OR model and friends.... I still can't see how invoking quantum computation really solves the "problem" of choice. However, I believe "consciousness" is fundementally different from matter/energy, so it will never be just another biological process like digestion!

 

Huh (to the 2nd parapraph)?

Why believe it when you can suspend judgment and build a model based on evidence?

 

I try very hard to not do just that. In the case of gravity I could say it has a direct correlation with space-time warping as being a cause and ultimatly nobody knows what it is. M-Theory consequently predicts it's force confined in closed-loop strings.

The people may feel it's credible and there are no scientific hypothesis / theories on this. Because a physacist has an opinion doesn't make it true.

Like a bug perhaps? Being able to distinguish between self and other? Learning? Makinig different decisions?

IMO, a better question might be why would a particle need to understand anything? It seems like it's nothing more than cause an affect.

It doesnt seem freaky to me. Reality just doesn't seem to support it. While I don't have an explanation of the bahavior, that doesn't leave a void that must be filled with arbitrary explanations. It's an opportunity to explore and learn. I'll specualte the field of quantum physics will find an answer at some point. If it turns out to be consciousness then so be it. If not then so be it. Reality is what it is regardless of our opinions and right now I don't see any correlation between reality and the opinion that matter is conscious.

I can see the 'evidence' presented just fine. It supports a different set of conclusions / hypothesis. The experiment showed that superpositions can be dynamically expanded and collapsed. It didn't provide an explicit definition of consciousness nor compare the behavior of matter to this definition from exerimental results.

Consider that I am asking you to show reality directly agreeing with you. Show me a learning, affectionate, choice making, piece of styrofoam.

So if I am understanding correctly, not only do you know that matter is conscious, you also know that it can't contemplate audio art? Maybe it makes sense to re-present the argument and a good way to begin might be:

1) Define the exact criteria for consciousness.
2) Show how the experiment's results directly match up to this criteria.

You might be right. Go ahead and show your defintion.

Emotion acceptance before truth? We're not in the dark ages you know.

Because you don't seem to suspend judgement and you do seem to embrace the attractive.

Did the state change becuase information was wiped out, or did the state simply change due to changes in the relationships involved (i.e. cause and effect)?

Others would gladly do that for you if you had compelling evidence.

 

But if the data correlates with the opinion and supports it as well, isnt it abit foolish to say 'oh well thats just an opinion, i can safely ignore this'.
Btw we're not talking about some wacky fringe physicists who got thrown out of college here, we're talking about the central figures of quantum mechanics.
I find it staggering, that you think their opinions on the very field of science they have pioneered arnt worth listening too and have no credibility.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you sure you arnt filtering out what doesnt appear attractive to you here?

Probably less complex than a bug, prehaps simpler organisms such as bacteria. Although im just making analogies here, im not saying a particle has the exact same comprehension and awarenss of its surroundings as a bug does. We can only really make crude comparisons with earth-based lifeforms which arnt going to be a perfect match.

Yep the observer collapses the wavefunction, cause - effect, but the difficulty with ending the enquiry there is that an 'observer' is a very abstract thing, information related to the particle is even moreabstract still. How can a particle source out this highly complex and particular information that relates to it? Id say awareness of its surroundings would offer a simple and elegant explaination, and as ive pointed out previously im not the only person who feels this to be a likely explaination.

No ones creating arbitrary explainations here, we're talking about the scientific method. You cant say the evidence isnt there because the evidence doesnt meet your own personal criteria of what consciousness is.
Its not a case of 'reality doesnt seem to support it' its really a case of 'crunchy cat's version of reality doesnt seem to support it'.

<When faced with evidence contrary to how you believe the universe works, simply change the rules of the game by invoking a set of criteria entirely self-created, regardless whether these criteria are supported by any other human being >
It seems like thats what you do every time someone brings something up that doesnt appeal to you and has clear reasoning and evidence to support it.

I think consciousness can simply be defined as 'awareness' either of the internal or external or both. Obviously particles can show awareness of being studied or when something in the universe has suddenly decided to take notes on them (so to speak).
Obviously looking at life on earth you can see all kinds of specialised consciousness(s) geared towards specific tasks.
I think the problem i had earlier was that you were expecting anything that would be conscious to have the very same particular aspects of consciousness that we humans have.

Huh? since when is the acknowledgment of the emotional fallacy of human beings a through back to the darkages?

hehe ok, but you know beauty is in the eye of the beholder right? what you percieve as an attractive notion is just something that looks attractive to you. Theres nothing really *that* attractive about a consciousness universe is there? i mean if im right and everything is aware then that doesnt suddenly give our lives meaning and deep spiritual purpose does it...
Why does the notion appear attractive to you?

 

But if the data correlates with the opinion and supports it as well, isnt it abit foolish to say 'oh well thats just an opinion, i can safely ignore this'.
Btw we're not talking about some wacky fringe physicists who got thrown out of college here, we're talking about the central figures of quantum mechanics.
I find it staggering, that you think their opinions on the very field of science they have pioneered arnt worth listening too and have no credibility.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you sure you arnt filtering out what doesnt appear attractive to you here?

Probably less complex than a bug, prehaps simpler organisms such as bacteria. Although im just making analogies here, im not saying a particle has the exact same comprehension and awarenss of its surroundings as a bug does. We can only really make crude comparisons with earth-based lifeforms which arnt going to be a perfect match.

Yep the observer collapses the wavefunction, cause - effect, but the difficulty with ending the enquiry there is that an 'observer' is a very abstract thing, information related to the particle is even moreabstract still. How can a particle source out this highly complex and particular information that relates to it? Id say awareness of its surroundings would offer a simple and elegant explaination, and as ive pointed out previously im not the only person who feels this to be a likely explaination.

No ones creating arbitrary explainations here, we're talking about the scientific method. You cant say the evidence isnt there because the evidence doesnt meet your own personal criteria of what consciousness is.
Its not a case of 'reality doesnt seem to support it' its really a case of 'crunchy cat's version of reality doesnt seem to support it'.

When faced with evidence contrary to how you believe the universe works, simply change the rules of the game by invoking a set of criteria entirely self-created, regardless whether these criteria are supported by any other human being
It seems like thats what you do every time someone brings something up that doesnt appeal to you and has clear reasoning and evidence to support it.

I think consciousness can simply be defined as 'awareness' either of the internal or external or both. Obviously particles can show awareness of being studied or when something in the universe has suddenly decided to take notes on them (so to speak).
Obviously looking at life on earth you can see all kinds of specialised consciousness(s) geared towards specific tasks.
I think the problem i had earlier was that you were expecting anything that would be conscious to have the very same particular aspects of consciousness that we humans have.

Huh? since when is the acknowledgment of the emotional fallacy of human beings a throw back to the darkages? People *should* challange their own assumptions, biases, and internal associations once in a while, i think its healthy and not the enemy of truth that you seem to believe.

hehe ok, but you know beauty is in the eye of the beholder right? what you percieve as an attractive notion is just something that looks attractive to you. Theres nothing really *that* attractive about a consciousness universe is there? i mean if im right and everything is aware then that doesnt suddenly give our lives meaning and deep spiritual purpose does it...
Why does the notion appear attractive to you?

Theyre the same thing, youre just switching the semantics around to make it sound more palletable to your own ear.

 

If the data supported it well then it wouldn't be an opinion and we would see all sorts of consciousness theories in physics books. Seeing as that's not the case...

We are however talking about people... and people have a natural tendancy to anthropmoprhize things. These people also aren't beyond the influence of belief. Rememnber that person who stated the 3rd derivative was something utterly wrong (and I mean utterly)?

Again, just to clarify, the idea IS very attractive to me. For anyone whom asserts it as a possibility, I don't agree based on our present knowledge of reality. For anyone whom asserts it as truth, well, we both know their onus.

Probably simpler? What is being proposed is anything but simple and even bacteria can distinguish between self and other while making different decisions.

To answer your question, I don't know. I also don't know that the question makes sense to the topic. Simplicity and elegance are great tools to communicate an explanation and should not be criteria for embracing an explanation about reality (rarely is anything in reality ever simple). Simiarly, because a group of people 'feels' something is the truth doesn't make it any more likely to be true.

Correction, the 'evidence' hasn't met ANY criteria for what consciousness is. Consequently, if reality did support it there would be real scientific theories on it... and there arnen't... so this contradicts the assertion.

I know it seems that way to you and I haven't seen the evidence you speak of. What I have seen is evidence supporting different ideas. IMO, this is an interpretation issue. My conceptual geometry filters information differently than yours. Interpretation always seems to be the weak spot and reality is there to validate / falsify our interpretations. My knowledge and experience lead me to predict that your interpretation will be falsified once we know the definitive answer. If your idea is in fact utterly incorrect, what will you have learned?

You might be headed into circular definition land. Define awareness. I might suggest using explicit sequences of words to show what you mean.

You're the expert on consciousness here. Give me a detailed definition. What is it's explicit criteria?

In that time period, if you didn't get emotional acceptance of an idea (no matter how true) you might be killed. That same notion isn't true anymore in the U.S.

Think about the implications of a conscious universe. Suddenly a collective mind might not be so far fetched. Your teeth might find a cure to AIDS. Neutrino's might like your eyes. The meaning of meaning changes. The universe becomes a veritable jungle of sentience to explore.

Then of course there is the comedy factor... think about all those people whom would be upset that sitting on a chair might make the chair atoms suffer under the weight of their asses. Can you sue your kitchen table for invasion of privacy? Oooooh the wholesome goodness just boggles the mind.

I just did a bad job in asking the right question. I'll try a different way. Is the particle making the decision to change it's state or do the laws of reality change it's state?

 

Sorry, but that just doesn't work. It isn't a machine at all.

First of all we need to be aware. Cause that is the point of consciousness.

Or if you want it this way instead. First of all we must exist. So we can realise anything. How do the supposed machine create existance? It is *not* that we know of our existance! It is that we exist! To *know* is to *exist*.

Without our existance our body would just be a empty shell, and I am having a hard time seeing it function at all. As it would have to react on reflexes only. Even if that was to be included in the (very complex) brain also, the reflex method would be much too primitive to enable the kind of flexibility we have today. We wouldn't even survive.

So it is true that we survive because of our existance.

I hope you get by now that I'm not talking about the existance of the body, but the existance of us.

I understand also that you don't seperate the existances of the body and us. But you should know, that a unconscious body (like a robot) can exist, but still not have 'us' to exist along with it. Thus we can speak of two seperate existances, one of the body, and one of mental existance. Cause if your body were unconscious then you wouldn't exist. But your body will, so there we have one existance of the body. Now it is so that you are in a conscious body, so you exist too, thus we have two existances, one of the body, and one of you.



The tasks that we are doing require awareness, not the actual movement, but the initiation and purpouse of it. One (or more) parts of the brain can be seen as tools for setting the basic 'tune', so that we have a clue what to 'play'. So the brain is doing what it can, instead of reducing itself to simple reflexes it let's us handle most of the things while it can make judgements and give clues to us.

I don't think I can fully explain it though.

I think you are onto something here...

When we direct ourself to a memory or to deduction we associate things that makes the memory or deduction come forth.

So it's wrong to say that we actually direct something, rather we take whatever we have at hand to make the memory build itself using the associations we have of the (at that point) unclear memory. The same thing happens with deduction, when we have a small idea of how it should work, and we have to use this vague idea and associate it with things to make the 'clear' idea come forth from it.

You could say though that we direct our awareness to where the memory should be, it is like looking in the night after some unclear and vague object, let's say that different objects have different associations with it, so to bring it to the light (which is near you) you have to speak associations to it, so that the correct object come nearer to you. Or you could imagine calling out to a crowd in search of one special person, which you have forgotten his name, and it is in the night so you don't see clearly. Now you have to use what you know about the person to make him come forth.

Well, I guess that's how I look at that...not that I know if it has importance to the question at hand.

I say you simplify far too much, but you were on to something at least.

No not really, it is useful in many ways. It's not often we have to be on constant alert, so it would be very, very unwise to use it only as a detection and assesment system, seeing as it has usefulness in some many other areas.

When did it evolve? Even animals has their own 'culture' so to say, at least I see no reason why not, they have things in common, which should qualify as a culture. Culture could be more fundamental than you think, or it is just a rename of something allready known as familiarity within groups. As such even a friendship of two persons could have it's own culture, and it has (probably).

Sure, but I don't think there were many original concepts there. There are better theories out there, but I think most of them have these inconsistenses too.

That's just because consciousness is such a special case where we know something, not because of outside ways which we normally know things, but we know it from the inside, which we would never have known if we didn't experiance it in ourselves.

This creates a special problem for scientists. They know of something they have never seen physically (even a physical theory, which has yet to be developed).

If it weren't for our experiance of it, the scientists would probably not have thought it existed at all and never would have looked for it.

 

hasn't psychology already got it