Thread: Model Of Determinism.

Lots of quantum physics supporters believe that observation plays a vital role in the nature of reality itself, including people in this thread.

http://www.freedomeducation.ca/2009/...ysics-secrets/

http://quantumartandpoetry.blogspot....-and-free.html

http://www.quantumlifechanges.com/quantumphysics.htm

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Lots of quantum physics supporters believe that observation plays a vital role in the nature of reality itself, including people in this thread.

http://www.freedomeducation.ca/2009/...ysics-secrets/

http://quantumartandpoetry.blogspot....-and-free.html

http://www.quantumlifechanges.com/quantumphysics.htm

Observation is a vague word that doesn't necessarily mean human observation. Gravity fulfills the role of observation in quantum systems bigger than an atom or two. What most people don't realize is that observation only affects systems that are small enough that they aren't being affected by anything else. The only real correlation that could be drawn between the act of conscious observation and quantum systems is that conscious observation seems to affect the system in the same way as the fundamental forces of nature, which is one of the many reasons why I personally believe consciousness to be a fundamental constituent of reality, much like electro-weak forces, strong nuclear forces and gravity.

Observation does play a vital role, but it is just one piece of the puzzle.

Also, you can't expect me to take any of those links seriously. The first one is merely an extremely simplified explanation, and the second two are just people who are looking for anything to lend credence to beliefs they already hold.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Okay, let's focus on those that you say are correct instead of arguing about whether they are all correct. The explanations involve events (realities, circumstances, happenings, material arrangements, whatever term you find acceptable... You know what I am getting at.) that do not involve observers. I am trying to get you to explain those situations. For example, the formation of Earth. No observers are in that specific scenario. Right? I know that observers are in a very distantly following scenario, but not that one. Or, are you saying that the fact that we analyze and understand it in the current scenario makes us the observers for it? If so, then you rule out the existence of both time and randomness. Why are we not being consumed by the molten rock?

There were a few things to consider that I've already gone over, in regards to human perception and observation. Let me break it down:

1. A so called explanation of a past event requires an observer at present (because it is currently being explained).

2. The past event is a hypothetical perception in that it is formed by the mind and it's paradigm of reasoning, but it is projected outside itself and its current "time-frame." It is persuaded or influenced by currently available facts, theories, knowledge etc.

3. Because it is hypothetical, it has no actual existence externally outside observation, but only in the mind. Controversially, this is the same for the perception of time. It means that there is no past or future, but also that the seeming events are only true within the circumstances of observation. In the substrate of consciousness, nothing really happens and time and space can not give rise to any absolute form.

The formation of the Earth, for example, is a perception of the infinite field of consciousness in its manifest existence, but it has far greater Reality when the linear perception is resolved beyond its dimensions. This means that the infinite replaces the finite. That has nothing to do with negating or wronging the finite but merely re-contextualizing it. When this happens, there seem to be many paradoxes because they're radically different paradigms - un-manifest potentiality vs manifest actuality.

When I imply that evolution didn't happen in the past, I stress both the limitation of time and the limitation of human observation within the context of quantum reality. Remember in one case it is true (assuming it is correct), in another it may be true but with a completely different quality and dimension.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Observation is a vague word that doesn't necessarily mean human observation. Gravity fulfills the role of observation in quantum systems bigger than an atom or two. What most people don't realize is that observation only affects systems that are small enough that they aren't being affected by anything else. The only real correlation that could be drawn between the act of conscious observation and quantum systems is that conscious observation seems to affect the system in the same way as the fundamental forces of nature, which is one of the many reasons why I personally believe consciousness to be a fundamental constituent of reality, much like electro-weak forces, strong nuclear forces and gravity.

Observation does play a vital role, but it is just one piece of the puzzle.

So basically you're saying human observation is only one part of the whole quantum situation, in the sense that there are also other dominating parts such as "electro-weak forces, strong nuclear forces and gravity"? As I understand it, consciousness is part of all these things too, but of course that doesn't mean a conscious being can control gravity through observation. See what I mean?

Originally Posted by really

So basically you're saying human observation is only one part of the whole quantum situation, in the sense that there are also other dominating parts such as "electro-weak forces, strong nuclear forces and gravity"? As I understand it, consciousness is part of all these things too, but of course that doesn't mean a conscious being can control gravity through observation. See what I mean?

No, I don't. Explain? Consciousness and the fundamental forces are all part of something else, but you'll have to explain how the fundamental forces are part of consciousness.

Lol. Consciousness is not a physical force or inherent property of the universe as some people here put it. It's a frigging cognitive function of the brain, on a MUCH, MUCH more macroscopic level. Robots can theoretically be programmed to have consciousness - it just takes some heavy work.

Why must human beings be so special? We're just part of the fugging matter that exists on the universe. If we're discussing this, we're doing it because of causality.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol. Consciousness is not a physical force or inherent property of the universe as some people here put it. It's a frigging cognitive function of the brain, on a MUCH, MUCH more macroscopic level. Robots can theoretically be programmed to have consciousness - it just takes some heavy work.

Why must human beings be so special? We're just part of the fugging matter that exists on the universe. If we're discussing this, we're doing it because of causality.

You are the one equating humans and consciousness, not me. I don't know if really is or not, but I doubt it. If it is so funny that people are saying this, then you can probably back yourself up with some scientific or philosophical arguments about the nature of consciousness, can't you? I know I already posted one that explained it in the way that I am describing it; did you read it?

Just in case you missed it, here it is again;

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

My personal views on this subject are very much in line with the one explained in this paper, which labels consciousness as part of the universal substrate, or fabric of existence. In this sense, asking if something existed before consciousness is akin to asking if something objectively existed with form before gravity or electromagnetic forces, or space, or time.

I also backed it up with a fairly in-depth explanation of some of the implications of quantum theory. Can you point out anywhere that I was wrong? Instead of just coming in and attempting to 'laugh off' people you don't agree with and make baseless assertions, how about you actually participate in the discussion?

It's a mystery in the sense that nobody is able to explain why it exists. It is easy to conceive of a being capable of acting intelligently which doesn't have conciousness (a philosophical zombie). Therefore an explanation is needed. The holism of the phenomenon is for all intents and purposes paradoxical due to the Ship of Theseus arguments you can apply.

Nobody knows how to make a robot (computer would be a better word, or any kind of object capable of enacting algorithms) conscious because nobody knows the neural and hence algorithmic correlates of consciousness (unless I suppose we take the brute force method of emulating an entire brain).

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Observation is a vague word that doesn't necessarily mean human observation. Gravity fulfills the role of observation in quantum systems bigger than an atom or two.

That's interesting. Obviously you are not somebody I take much issue with on the topic.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Also, you can't expect me to take any of those links seriously. The first one is merely an extremely simplified explanation, and the second two are just people who are looking for anything to lend credence to beliefs they already hold.

So what if the first explanation is simplified? It sums up what the stance I described. The other two further show the commonality of it.

Originally Posted by really

There were a few things to consider that I've already gone over, in regards to human perception and observation. Let me break it down:

1. A so called explanation of a past event requires an observer at present (because it is currently being explained).

Of course a historical analysis requires an observer. That is completely beside the point.

Originally Posted by really

2. The past event is a hypothetical perception in that it is formed by the mind and it's paradigm of reasoning, but it is projected outside itself and its current "time-frame." It is persuaded or influenced by currently available facts, theories, knowledge etc.

It's not something that got us here? Then what are we doing here? Is part of your overall point that the present is just some random WTF while the past is some wild thing we create with our minds in the present?

Originally Posted by really

3. Because it is hypothetical, it has no actual existence externally outside observation, but only in the mind. Controversially, this is the same for the perception of time. It means that there is no past or future, but also that the seeming events are only true within the circumstances of observation. In the substrate of consciousness, nothing really happens and time and space can not give rise to any absolute form.

The formation of the Earth, for example, is a perception of the infinite field of consciousness in its manifest existence, but it has far greater Reality when the linear perception is resolved beyond its dimensions. This means that the infinite replaces the finite. That has nothing to do with negating or wronging the finite but merely re-contextualizing it. When this happens, there seem to be many paradoxes because they're radically different paradigms - un-manifest potentiality vs manifest actuality.

When I imply that evolution didn't happen in the past, I stress both the limitation of time and the limitation of human observation within the context of quantum reality. Remember in one case it is true (assuming it is correct), in another it may be true but with a completely different quality and dimension.

Just sum why in the Hell humans are on this planet. What got us here? What is the cause of the present?

LMAO.
Get serious Xaqaria. Come on. Try backing your arguments with facts. Call me when you're done, if that day ever comes.

You don't even know basic biochemistry and physiology to know how a brain works. Don't try to use quantum physics to explain consciousness -- it's like trying to use culinary to explain WW2.

I will detail my response when I have more time. But as for now, Kromoh, perhaps you should actually back up your claims yourself. So far you just seem to be carrying on and laughing at others. Give us a break and at least elaborate.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LMAO.
Get serious Xaqaria. Come on. Try backing your arguments with facts. Call me when you're done, if that day ever comes.

You don't even know basic biochemistry and physiology to know how a brain works. Don't try to use quantum physics to explain consciousness -- it's like trying to use culinary to explain WW2.

Originally Posted by really

I will detail my response when I have more time. But as for now, Kromoh, perhaps you should actually back up your claims yourself. So far you just seem to be carrying on and laughing at others. Give us a break and at least elaborate.

The onus of proof is up to you. Your argument is a joke. Thus, I will not waste my time disproving something I don't really need to. You don't even know what consciousness is.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LMAO.
Get serious Xaqaria. Come on. Try backing your arguments with facts. Call me when you're done, if that day ever comes.

You don't even know basic biochemistry and physiology to know how a brain works. Don't try to use quantum physics to explain consciousness -- it's like trying to use culinary to explain WW2.

So why don't you enlighten us proles with your in-depth knowledge of the source of consciousness? While you're at it, you should point us in the direction of your Nobel winning dissertation on the subject, as since no one else on the planet has been able to explain the the reason for the existence of the phenomenon, you must have managed to publish your amazing insights. Come on Genius, show us what you've got.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscio...fic_approaches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention

When you're done reading that, I'll direct you to neuroscience books.

Oh, Kromoh. I'm disappointed in you. Wikipedia is hardly a groundbreaking thesis. Is that the best effort you can muster?

The basic question which needs to be answered is this: why are we not philosophical zombies?

You won't find it on Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Oh, Kromoh. I'm disappointed in you. Wikipedia is hardly a groundbreaking thesis. Is that the best effort you can muster?

It's as much as I need to enlighten you. I thought you'd understand that, if you bring concepts too complex to a person, they won't understand it.

Yo didn't even read Wikipedia. Shame on you. You won't get too far without a basis, you know.

Here go some book recommendations to get you going into neurosciences (while you're at it, note how no author ever mentions quantum physics):

Atlas of Neuroscience - Netter
Basic Neuroscience - Guyton
The Cognitive Neurosciences - Gazzaniga

Please stop dismissing my question.

Originally Posted by Xei

Please stop dismissing my question.

Please stop dismissing things I tell you to read.

Also, please stop bickering over stupidities. Here I was thinking this was a mature argument. For a moment I forgot the fact that people who misinterpret quantum physics are never mature.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

It's as much as I need to enlighten you. I thought you'd understand that, if you bring concepts too complex to a person, they won't understand it.

Yo didn't even read Wikipedia. Shame on you. You won't get too far without a basis, you know.

Here go some book recommendations to get you going into neurosciences (while you're at it, note how no author ever mentions quantum physics):

Atlas of Neuroscience - Netter
Basic Neuroscience - Guyton
The Cognitive Neurosciences - Gazzaniga

Since you are obviously far more intelligent than me, why don't you just explain to me how exactly neuroscience explains the existence of consciousness. Make sure you use simple language so we can all understand. You could start by answering Xei's question; Why are we not philosophical zombies?

Please stop dismissing things I tell you to read.

I don't have time to read three textbooks right now, especially seeing as there won't be any public copies within a twenty mile radius of here and judging by the blurbs they don't even seem to go into the philosophy of awareness.

It's really very simple; if you had an answer, you would be able to just say it. Or if it's too complex, at least reference some passage where another author has done so!

Now please stop acting in such a nonsensical manner and have the balls to admit like the rest of us that you don't actually have a clue.

The truth is there isn't consciousness in the way you idealize. There is only attention. It's a cognitive function that was naturally selected throughout evolution. You'd have figured so if you had read the free and readily available wikipedia articles.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean nobody in the world does.

The truth is there isn't consciousness in the way you idealize. There is only attention. It's a cognitive function that was naturally selected throughout evolution. You'd have figured so if you had read the free and readily available wikipedia articles. You hard-headed idiot.

I wouldn't have figured it out from your completely unhelpful article dropping because I disagree that it is an answer.

The brain can be viewed as a system made of parts. As with any other system made of parts that we observe, I can see no reason why it cannot exist without any form of subjective experience. It is in essence just a 'collection of objects bumping into one another'.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on the Ship of Theseus arguments.

If your brain were replaced neuron by neuron with an identically functioning microchip, would you expect your awareness to remain? If not, how is this consistent with the fact that the material that constitutes your neurons is constantly being cycled with no apparent change in awareness?

What if your brain were replaced all at once?

And what if two replica brains were created at the same time? Where would you expect your awareness to be now? Destroyed? If so, how is this any different from replacing neurons one at a time?

I'm not an idiot btw.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean nobody in the world does.

Cheers, for a moment there I thought I knew every fact known by anybody ever.

There is also the issue of attention not requiring the experience of attention. A motion sensing camera can track a person's progress across the room. It has attention, is it experiencing attention? Is it conscious?