Originally Posted by Xaqaria
None of your regurgitated data in this post is relevant to what I said at all. I'm not talking about just any electrons in your head as part of the molecules; I'm talking about information transferring electromagnetic fields. The electrons in a water molecule rarely transfer information, since they are in a stable state. There are thousands of neural spikes occurring in your brain every second, and each one is electrons being transferred in order to pass on information. These are quantum events. The electromagnetic field that surrounds your brain and the rest of your body and allows EEG machines to work is governed by quantum mechanics.
Man, do you even know how neurons work? Potential of action, limiter for impulse, etc etc? Seriously, biological processes were already explained by pre-quantum physics. Which means quantum physics changes nothing about them.
In science, new theories only come to explain old theories on a more microscopic level. I don't think you even realize the order of the difference in size between subatomic particles and your cell membranes and your cell size.
Also, are you really saying water is stable? Seriously? You'd be chocked by the real numbers. A drop of water is much more active than you think, even though you don't see it.
I was arguing that the results of experiments in quantum mechanics are evidence that consciousness plays a fundamental role in our universe since the act of conscious observation has the same or similar effects on wave functions as gravity, electro-weak forces, and strong nuclear forces.
So consciousness plays a fundamental role in our universe? Which pseudo-science book did you take that from?
Seriously, the universe could care less if you know about something or not. Remember you are just an organization of matter, and what you "know" is but proteins reacting in your brain. You may get that special, tingly feeling that you "know" something, but really, that is just emotion, another thing processed by your brain. Emotions cloud your understanding and make the fool of you.
You happen not know know what "observation" is. To observe something is to let that thing influence you, in a way that the influence can be used to differentiate the composition, properties and behaviour of the thing. And the interaction changes the state of the observed thing. To see something is but to shoot photons at an object, let the photons interact with the object, and then receive the photons with your eyes and interpret them.
To "observe" something is to interact with an object in order to produce information. Information is anything that can potentially become a human thought. A human thought is a conformation of chemical and electric chain processes occurring in a human brain.
You think that the problem with observing something is that consciousness affects it. Nah. The problem with observing something is that, to observe that something, you have to interact with it -- and to interact with it is to change it. It's what I explained (and you didn't understand) with the watch analogy -- you can't analyse it without breaking it. It's what the Schroedinger's cat paradox is about -- you can't observe without interacting. The concept of "observation" has nothing to do with human attention or understanding or what you call consciousness. To observe is to interact with the observed and produce information about it.
Putting up links is not an argument. Your wikipedia links did not address the issue at all (have you read them?) and I showed you exactly how your attention link is not enough to explain consciousness. Have you read the books you listed? I know I'm not going to go spend $100+ dollars in order to find out if they even have anything to do with the discussion we are having. This is what is called misdirection on your part. Cite evidence that you know people don't have access to so when someone says "you didn't offer any arguments or evidence" you can say, "yes I did, you just didn't read the books!"
The links did address the issue. Reading the title of the article doesn't mean you read the article. If you'd read them, you'd see they explain every questioning of yours.
Nah, it's not misdirection on my part. It's negligence on yours. I cited books I have read with information about what you asked, and you're accusing me of not providing sources because you don't have direct access to them. And in any case, I also gave you the wikipedia links, with direct access, but you didn't read them. I did all I could, I gave you book references, internet links and I explained things to you -- don't accuse me of not giving you evidence. You're the one beating the dead horse here.
Do you know what a philosophical zombie is?
No. Enlighten me.
What cognitive function does experience arise from?
Several.
Yeah right.
Originally Posted by Xei
I'm doing a scientific degree in the hope of going into a scientific career. wtf.
I don't think you're actually listening to anything I'm saying. You're so wrapped up in this false dichotomy of 'science and pure materialism' and 'mysticism and dualism' you keep imagining me to be saying things which I'm not. I never said anything along the lines of 'consciousness breaks physical laws'.
Yes, you never said anything about mysticism. Well, it's never bad to make sure. I'm arguing from multiple fronts to try to find where your conceptual mistake is. Also, remember your point of view can be a little non-scientific even if you don't realize it. I don't know exactly what you are thinking, sorry, I'm no mind reader. Forgive me if I don't know what your exact beliefs are.
Descartes' argument is not concerned with if you are 'genuinely' denying your own existence, it is a simple argument that shows that if you were to make such a denial, it would lead to a contradiction; hence, you exist. I only brought up Descartes as an aside because you seemed to be denying that there is an experiencer associated with your brain.
Nah. If you believe you are denying, when you are actually doing something you are programmed to do, then, you aren't really denying. In the same way that someone who is forced to kill is not a murderer.
Define "experiencer". I don't know what you mean by it.
Now that I've addressed the rather tangential things you decided to respond to, can you please answer the question that my entire post was talking about;
Well, if it weren't for quantum physics, atoms wouldn't exist in the first place.
Man. Shut up. You don't know beans about which you are talking. Quantum physics is a branch of science. Science is a means for humans to understand reality. Reality would always be there, even if human beings knew no science.
Reality is there. Science only analyses it.
But according to what I've heard it's believed to be true that you can understand the brain with classical ideas.
Bingo.
You can't answer a question by telling somebody to read an entire goddamn textbook, the vast majority or perhaps even all of which is totally irrelevant to the question.
Man. People spend years learning neuroscience. Spend at least a few minutes reading the links I provided you.
Okay, even if you want to take the rather bizarre opinion that everybody including Xaq is a philosophical zombie; you should still be able to answer the question 'why are you not a philosophical zombie'.
Who said I'm not? I am. Just like everyone else. We are all machines, people. Our brains break no physical laws. Our brains aren't special nor different from the rest of the universe. Our brains are made of regular matter, obeying the exact same physical laws, no exceptions nor additions.
|
|
Bookmarks