Questioning Consciousness

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby minime » Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:07 pm

In my own explorations, I've found my body to be much more intelligent & aware than whatever role I walk around performing most days, and have discerned a clear, profound qualitative difference between being merely awake vs. actually aware. The boundary is binary but on the other side is a very broad spectrum of experience to explore. One of my focuses recently has been to get comfortable with the sensation of being multi-local, which is rather alarming -- a bit like falling off a building in a dream, generally to the same result of ending the experience, too.

-WR

How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?

These ideas have to be understood in Dhyana, or meditation. We hear a sound. First, there is the external vibration; second, the nerve motion that carries it to the mind; third, the reaction from the mind, along with which flashes the knowledge of the object which was the external cause of these different changes from the ethereal vibrations to the mental reactions. These three are called in Yoga, Shabda (sound), Artha (meaning), and Jnâna (knowledge). In the language of physics and physiology they are called the ethereal vibration, the motion in the nerve and brain, and the mental reaction. Now these, though distinct processes, have become mixed up in such a fashion as to become quite indistinct. In fact, we cannot now perceive any of these, we only perceive their combined effect, what we call the external object. Every act of perception includes these three, and there is no reason why we should not be able to distinguish them.

-Vivekananda
User avatar
minime
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby coffin_dodger » Sat Apr 30, 2016 2:51 pm

Had an incredible dream last night - actually, not so much the dream, but the realisation, on waking, of the significance of the dream.

It's a place I've visited in snippets many times before (in retrospect) - a gloomy Victorian house full of wood panelling, stiflingly narrow corridors, winding, cramped stairs that lead to tiny crawlspaces; with stilled, stale air clogging the gloom.

The second I woke up I knew I had been exploring the mind of my father. I was in his mind.

I'm going to be more kind and tender with him from now on.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Sounder » Mon May 02, 2016 5:46 am

I’m not quite catching on to what you mean by 3state, so inevitably I relate it to signifiers used to maintain my understanding. So it seems as if you are creating a way to have better rapport between mind and Mind. I like that you mentioned being luckier and the mindfulness of words/self-critical aspect.

My way of attempting this is to ask questions. One of the better questions was to ask; what are the most basic elements contained within every event or experience?

The answer came back as Order and Liberty/spontaneity. This also revealed an idea that an effective way to improve experience was to aspire to balance order and spontaneity in all activities. Process then becomes all important as goals come to be seen as little more than ego-aggrandizement projects.

Thank-you Pele’sDaughter for reminding us of Mr. Ruiz. When you first introduced him to us I remember being impressed with his process oriented outlook, and find that the method I use produces similar value markers. The key, I think, is to realize that a healthy outlook works from the inside out rather than from the outside in. While the first way allows for connection to Source, the second way is an attempt to treat social conditioning as being ‘truth’. And that is bound to not end well.



coffin dodger wrote…
I found that my state of mind has changed dramatically, resulting in new ideas and feelings. This will possibly sound crass, but I'm luckier. On one scale, my own mind has passed through 3state from one state to another. I like the feeling, so I looked at 3state more and more. The more I see, the better and more positive I feel. The intuition opposing side delivered this to me, but the opposing rigor side can deliver for the rigorous. It's for everyone. It's balanced.

Were any of the 'truths' delivered self-critical? i.e. did you see/understand how you had hurt peoples' feelings and how to be more mindful of your words and actions in the future? I ask because I experience that often. It has changed me enormously.


Pele’sDaughter wrote…
Absolutely. It all came together when I read The Four Agreements. What my awakening and shedding my programming allowed me to do was actually change my behavior and forgive myself. That vicious circular thinking and mental argument simply vanished from my head. There was no longer any conflict between my inner and outer selves. I became one with my integrity.
1. Be Impeccable with your Word: Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the Word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your Word in the direction of truth and love.

2. Don’t Take Anything Personally
Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering.

3. Don’t Make Assumptions
Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.

4. Always Do Your Best
Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse, and regret.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Sounder » Tue May 03, 2016 6:19 am

The creation and use of Anti-Depressants can be used as an example of how the outside-in model reveals its shortcomings.

This class of drugs ‘works’ by inhibiting emotional connections and expressions. The patient however may still long for emotional contact precisely because of its lack. Driven then by motivations similar to those called slashers, a certain percentage of patients will lash out in a desperate bid to feel emotion.

Outside-in thinking is at the core of consumerism because that gives value to objects that would otherwise have much less value. The gap that we create between the physical and the spiritual drives the market for transitional objects that vainly attempt to fill this gap.

Unfortunately, because the self-image of most modern folk is built around variations of outside-in thinking, presenting the issues in a way that encourages discussion is no easy task.

But really, the only way to be healthy, wealthy and wise is with inside-out thinking.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Pele'sDaughter » Tue May 03, 2016 8:57 am

http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/subjective-e ... ign=buffer

Where is Subjective Experience in the Brain?
May 1, 2016

Current science has no explanation for subjective experience. There isn’t even an adequate definition of consciousness. Recent research continues many approaches in attempts to find a brain region that is correlated with basic awareness or consciousness. In order to proceed without definitions, study attempts to find simple awareness without specific content.

But, recent findings show that for most mental events, almost the entire brain is part of wide circuits signaling in milliseconds. No modules have been found, including modules for awareness. In fact, integration of all regions seems to be more relevant than modules. As someone slips into coma and anesthesia, modules appear when people are definitely not conscious. When aware, more widespread integration appears. This post describes efforts to answer the question—where is subjective experience in the brain.

There has been no evidence of a center of the brain. Previous theories of what brain regions are necessary for consciousness did not pan out. An old disproven theory includes the frontal parietal region. Theories of gamma rays correlating with awareness are outmoded. But, the search continues in study of circuits, regions and brain waves. Perhaps brain waves in smaller regions may be relevant.

One way to start researching a question without a definition is to find minimum regions or circuits of brain that allow perception of any type or action that appears to have a purpose. With more ability to monitor the brain through imaging, many medical patients who cannot communicate or move (vegetative state) have been shown to be aware.

Recent research points to totally different regions than were considered before. Previously, evaluation and monitoring were intuitively considered important. But these do not seem to be necessary for simple awareness, but rather are part of a larger experience. It is possible that sensory regions are more primary, but this is not clear either.

Perceptions have been described in previous posts. Surprisingly, more top down neurons modulate and determine results of sensory information than bottom up information input. The simplest part of having a perception of sound, sight, smell, or more complex emotions and thoughts, is just being awake and aware.

Brain regions for general awakeness are in midline brain. Previous theories of brain regions involved in awareness include cortex in the frontal and parietal regions. These also appear to be ancillary to the primary awareness. Gamma waves appear to be related to attention, not basic awareness. Recently, new research is finding other possible regions by studying vision and hearing.

To study seeing and hearing, subjects usually must answer questions about their ability to understand events. In the brain damage called blindsight, subjects might answer visual questions without being “aware” that they know what they are observing. Other ways to question subjects include scales where they note how certain they are of a particular observation. All of this involves subjectivity. The trick is trying to make objective observations out of subjectivity.

Content Versus Awareness

To determine content, specific neuronal circuits are studied.

Some neurons are involved in specifying particular aspects of a perception – Type 1 neurons. This can be studied in part by stimulating specific neurons to see if they triggers colors, views, faces or other aspects of perception.

Other neurons—Type 2—appear to be related to the full experience without the details that are received from the other types of neurons. These neurons combine all the details from many neurons. Other centers allow both types to exist, such as supplying energy to neurons. These background centers provide the ability to perceive, without any content or experience.

Content Type 1 Neurons

Studies compare activity with and without specific content, attempting to keep other variables the same. This is not easy. Many studies have included vision, such as presenting different stimuli to the right and left eye and studying which neurons fire. Many other types of studies are involved.

As a whole, these have identified neuronal networks in the frontal and parietal regions. These circuits are involved in measuring vision and movement tasks with stimuli that are real and not invisible. This research identifies many other factors that are not specifically regions for understanding perceptions. These factors are attention, distraction, planning and unconscious reactions. Complex research tries to get rid of each of these confounding variables to find the single conscious spot. Another problem with all of these studies is they involve subjective reports.

To try to identify Type 2 regions that pull an experience together, other study techniques are used. These compare general awareness with sleep, anesthesia and coma. These same regions in the frontal and parietal regions seem to be correlated in this research. But, these regions also are part of various levels of attention.

Comparing REM and Non REM sleep have been used to try to differentiate centers. These studies focus on different regions near the intersection of temporal, parietal and occipital regions for perceptions and a different frontal region for thoughts. Specific high frequency brain waves appear to be associated with specific experiences during dreaming, including visual information, movement and speech.

A region in the posterior brain is the focus of a number of these studies and is the same found in Type 1 centers. This posterior region has therefore become a focus of the search for neuronal centers related to conscious experience of a perception.

Brain Regions

There are many brain regions that don’t directly contribute to experience of specific subjective content. Damage to the large cerebellum doesn’t affect perception experiences much, if at all. Recently, a woman in China was identified who had no cerebellum at all. With neuroplasticity, she was fairly normal until adulthood, when it was randomly noted in a physical examination.

Brainstem damage is devastating to all experience. It appears that brainstem and hypothalamus are background regions necessary for subjective experience, but not involved in awareness, the content or experience. Even subcortical regions that modulate content are not really necessary in sleep.

Many regions determine emotional states, but aren’t the experience of an emotion. Basal ganglia damage decreases motivation and emotion. But even with extensive damage and some cognitive deficits, patients can be aware with subjective experience. Another region under the insula cortex has been studied for its relation to subjective experience. Several case reports of damage to this area have conflicting results and one had awareness and subjective experience.

Thalamus integrates sensory data. Studies show lesions cause decreased motor ability and poor communication. They can cause coma or not and they have conflicting results about awareness. There doesn’t seem to be a direct correlation with the content of awareness.

Studies of cortex regions are complex. Primary visual regions appear to be related to identification of visual stimuli, not its content. Higher regions co relate to the content not the stimulus.

Studies show inconsistent results in the primary visual region (V1). Lesions in V1 produce unconscious awareness of vision called blindsight. They perform as if they see it but don’t have the experience of seeing it. Other lesions show that V1 is not sufficient for conscious perception of sights. Other primary sensory regions for touch and hearing have not had extensive research.

Another theory is that frontal cortex is related to conscious perception and dorsal unconscious and with movements. But, research shows that both are necessary for visual subjective awareness. Findings about the frontal parietal cortex are inconsistent. Consciousness doesn’t need a frontal lobe. Even lobectomies don’t stop subjective experience. Other lesions in the frontal region leave subjective experience, while affecting particular cognitive abilities. (see post on frontal lobe).

Posterior Cortex

Studies of loss of consciousness find the posterior medial cortex most correlated with awareness.

Studies of posterior cortex of several types relate it to subjective experience of content. Some provide stimuli and see relations of expectations and performance. Sleep studies also point to this region. During dreaming, frontal activity is low compared to awake states. fMRI studies show activity in these regions that correlate with visual stimuli as well. Electrical stimulation of brain regions also shows triggering of specific experiences with posterior cortex. These include faces and wanting to move.

Neuronal responses of scenes and people rapidly travel through many brain regions (in 100 milliseconds). This includes multiple parts of the cortex visual systems. It also includes more top down neurons related to perception. These complex feedback circuits appear to be necessary for subjective experience.

Are Particular Neurons Involved?

There have been suggestions that particular large neurons (von Economo neurons) in cortex layer 5 are related to subjective experience. These neurons are also called spindle neurons. But, recent studies show that these may be more related to unconscious behavior.

Thin tufted pyramidal cells in layer 5A and 6 are connected heavily to many cortical regions. Even more connected are supra granular pyramidal neurons, with many feedback connections. These neurons also have a unique spontaneous activity (called neuronal avalanches) that could relate to integration of experience content. In animals, this region is correlated with sensory awareness.

Brain Waves and Evoked Potentials

For some time, gamma waves in visual cortex have been thought to be related to subjective awareness in vision. Waves were thought to bind details to an experience with synchronous oscillations in the gamma range. More recent studies show high frequency gamma waves more related to attention and middle range to whether the stimulus is seen or not. Gamma waves occur in NREM sleep, anesthesia, seizures and unconscious experience. This new data shows gamma waves are not necessary for visual experience and are not correlated with awareness.

Evoked potentials are another way to study brain responses. Another possible marker of consciousness was thought to be a particular evoked potential. P3b occurs 300 milliseconds after a stimulus of sight or hearing. More recent data show some subjective content do not trigger it and sometimes it is triggered without content. Conscious patients with damaged brains don’t have it. 40% of coma patients have it. Findings are not at all consistent.

Recently, another evoked potential has emerged as possibly related. This is 100 milliseconds after a stimulus and is in the same posterior cortex region as the other possible candidates.

Another finding on EEG is also being studied. This is called activated or desynchronized EEG and occurs during attention. It consists of low voltage fast activity and deep sleep’s high voltage slow activity. Loss of consciousness occurs at the same time as thalamic switching from tonic to bursts of firing.

Slow waves are related to cortex switching on and off up and down states. Those subcortical brain regions changes occur with decrease of activating systems. High amplitude slow waves are related to loss of consciousness. Changes in the waves occur in transition from coma to barely conscious and then awake causing delta to theta to alpha. But, it is not clear this reflects awareness. Slow waves can occur in conscious people in epilepsy.

Previous studies have tried to correlate whole brain recordings to consciousness. But, local patterns may be more relevant. Sleep cortex can be activated while whole brain EEGs have only slow waves. Local activation in the parietal occipital region is related to visual dreams and then awakening.

Recent EEG studies show that there are many possible local events in conscious people. There are fewer variations when unconscious. Also consciousness might involve more integrated states rather than different modules with various activities.

Where is Subjective Experience in the Brain?

Most current approaches to finding places in the brain related to consciousness or awareness do not corroborate old theories of networks in the frontal parietal regions. Recent research is focused on activity in a much more narrow region near the overlap of the temporal-parietal-occipital regions. Some of these appear to be triggered by content of awareness—such as faces. The older larger circuits appear related to attention focused on particular areas, not simple awareness.

In fact, most regions of the brain have something to do with awareness and consciousness, but this doesn’t qualify them as a location of consciousness.

There is still no understanding of how subjective experience binds together all that is part of our daily experience of awareness. Most events in the brain involve large brain wide circuits traversed in milliseconds. Just this week, a study implied meaning of words is not in a language center, but distributed throughout the entire brain. The same is true for memory, which appears to be very distributed.

Some pre frontal regions are related to experiences of various types. Default mode circuits appear to be related to day dreaming and identity, not simple awareness. Other similar frontal regions have nothing directly to do with consciousness. With so much top-down effects in perception, it is not clear how much sensory regions contribute to simple awareness. Brainstem reticular formation and parts of the thalamus help create the necessary activation of circuits for awareness but are not awareness per se.

No brain region simply reflects consciousness. Some regions are correlated with content of awareness. For now, this search will continue with no definition of consciousness or subjective experience. We are left with our every day experience.
Don't believe anything they say.
And at the same time,
Don't believe that they say anything without a reason.
---Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Pele'sDaughter
 
Posts: 1917
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Texas
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby coffin_dodger » Tue May 03, 2016 7:25 pm

Sounder:
I’m not quite catching on to what you mean by 3state


Then I'll dig myself in, deeper.

We exist in a predictable and stable reality - in as much that; the table on which my keyboard sits doesn't just disappear and reappear at random - (yet!). All of the events/experiences that occur, in this reality, are a result of one end of an opposing spectrum becoming unbalanced in favour of the dominant (at that moment) end. This appears, to all intents and purposes, to be a binary reality. Either on - off, up - down, happy - sad, balanced - unbalanced.

I simply believe that simplicity lies at the heart of this reality. Complexity is great for getting stuck into and tying the mind in knots. Been there. Possibly still there, in fact. The more complex a theory to understand, the greater the accolades for the thinker, the more meat to digest. This tendency, in my opinion, has led to flights of fancy and fiction. Which is not a problem - I like fiction - but I want something that I can verify myself when it comes to reality. And I'm lazy of mind - I like simple.

It's cliched and hackneyed I know, but we are evolving. Everything is, it's a consequence of the way time works forward in this reality. As an ongoing process, we can create stuff undreamed of even just 50 years ago. Why would our consciousness not evolve too? We have recently evolved to the point where we can destroy ourselves - why wouldn't Nature evolve us to the point of giving us a way to avoid this, if we so choose?

3state is the point in between and connecting, at both ends, the two opposing sides which are constantly seeking equilibrium, in what, currently, our consciousness informs us is a binary reality - existent or non-existent, alive or dead, there or not there. 3state is hidden in plain sight - glimpsed by many through the ages - the third eye, the holy trinity, the third way etc - I'm pretty sure it's encoded in some rudimentary form (although perfectly understandable as being 'elementary', given the evolving consciousness sense) in the pyramids, the Mayan relics, Buddhism and the Bible to name but a few, should I ever find the time to explore these possibilities.

Of course, 3state is itself a 3state, in that it contains everything and nothing. This seems a laughable concept until 3state becomes a reality in your mind - then it makes perfect sense: equal and opposing opposites - everything and nothing. 3state is the place of utter stillness of mind - (nothing), sought by mystics across the ages and the place of all knowledge that has ever been, is and will be - (everything), again sought by mystics acrosss the ages. Two sides of the same coin at opposing ends, always seeking a return to equilibrium through and within 3state.

3state allows belief in fate and no fate. It allows knowing to be balanced by not knowing.

I'm mentally tired. Maybe mentally ill - probably both. But before I go... an experiment of sorts...up thread I talk about the two you's - the one that is in your mind and talks to itself, even about yourself, the real 'you' - and the one you present to everyone else that is conditioned by social conformity, 'morality' and what the 'inside you' thinks the other person, or people might, or might not, want to hear. Here's something to try - whenever you meet someone, try talking to their 'inside' person with your own 'inside you'. It's amazing how quickly the barriers come down. I think this is how people like 28_82 live their lives - it's a natural latent ability in some folk - which makes them the most honest and open people, in my eyes.

Sounder:
My way of attempting this is to ask questions. One of the better questions was to ask; what are the most basic elements contained within every event or experience?

The answer came back as Order and Liberty/spontaneity
. This also revealed an idea that an effective way to improve experience was to aspire to balance order and spontaneity in all activities.


I'll come back to this tomorrow, Sir (and possibly with diagrams) - for now, I must relax! 3state dictates it. :eeyaa

Yikes, just realised why we appear to be inhabiting an expanding Universe. Our senses are equipped only to see one opposing side or the other. Not both simultaneously. Scale - it's all about scale. Another time, perhaps.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby DrEvil » Tue May 03, 2016 8:48 pm

We exist in a predictable and stable reality - in as much that; the table on which my keyboard sits doesn't just disappear and reappear at random.


Actually it does, but only tiny bits at a time (individual particles). In theory your desk could one day disappear just long enough for your keyboard to fall through, but the odds are ludicrously, insanely small (as in: the universe will cease to exist before it happens).

One thing I've often wondered is that with 7 billion+ observers on the planet, how often (if ever) does someone witness quantum weirdness on a macroscopic scale?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby coffin_dodger » Wed May 04, 2016 6:53 am

DrEvil wrote:
We exist in a predictable and stable reality - in as much that; the table on which my keyboard sits doesn't just disappear and reappear at random.


Actually it does, but only tiny bits at a time (individual particles). In theory your desk could one day disappear just long enough for your keyboard to fall through, but the odds are ludicrously, insanely small (as in: the universe will cease to exist before it happens).


I'm unsure how to discuss this matter in a civil fashion with a diehard quantum theory subscriber - anything I say to the contrary of the quantum theory will possibly result in bouts of incredulity, anger, disbelief and dismissal. This has happened when being lectured about quantum physics by my dad (who bases his total belief system on the one book he has read on the subject and a couple of TV shows on the BBC about it) - resulting in awkward silences, resentment that I won't submit or comply with what he knows to be true and fewer phonecalls generally - so I apologise in advance for any offense caused.

I have a problem with quantum theory. In that, simply, it's too complicated - it continually branches into avenues that lead unexpectedly no where, except to the creation of further avenues when the incoming data does not fit. Or worse still, the corruption of fitting data to the desired, expected, theorized outcome. This is standard practice in the field of human endevour, but if a mistake has been made and an enormous amount of prestige, passage of time and acceptance has been built up, it's almost impossible to see behind the juggernaut to where the initial course was incorrectly set. Quantum theory is the tips of the branches of a tree whose trunk was conceived deformed long ago, yet continues to develop in absence of a credible and believable alternative.

"the universe will cease to exist before it happens" - quite convenient that, is it not? :wink

One thing I've often wondered is that with 7 billion+ observers on the planet, how often (if ever) does someone witness quantum weirdness on a macroscopic scale?


But surely, according to quantum theory - were this to happen, the Universe would have ceased to exist before it did happen. It's a lovely circular conundrum that goes nowhere. Quite like God, in a different guise.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby DrEvil » Wed May 04, 2016 7:51 am

I don't get your "hostility" to quantum physics. It's real, it has been observed (even at the macro scale, with a small tuning fork both vibrating and not vibrating at the same time), and your computer wouldn't work without it. You thinking it's too complex isn't going to change that.

"the universe will cease to exist before it happens" - quite convenient that, is it not?


Yes, your desk isn't going to disappear anytime soon, but tiny parts of it does all the time. Obviously all those tiny parts aren't going to disappear all at the same time, but in theory they could.
Again, this is stuff that has been observed and is completely uncontroversial.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Wed May 04, 2016 8:23 am

DrEvil » Wed May 04, 2016 11:51 am wrote:I don't get your "hostility" to quantum physics. It's real, it has been observed (even at the macro scale, with a small tuning fork both vibrating and not vibrating at the same time), and your computer wouldn't work without it. You thinking it's too complex isn't going to change that.

"the universe will cease to exist before it happens" - quite convenient that, is it not?


Yes, your desk isn't going to disappear anytime soon, but tiny parts of it does all the time. Obviously all those tiny parts aren't going to disappear all at the same time, but in theory they could.
Again, this is stuff that has been observed and is completely uncontroversial.


I'm having trouble unpicking CD's stuff at present (so I'm using your take), but surely he needs quantum physics if he's to cleave to that alternative explanation for the redshift of galaxies.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby coffin_dodger » Wed May 04, 2016 10:22 am

Dr Evil said:
and your computer wouldn't work without it


Genuinely interested in this - I've been 'into' computers for 25+ years and I had no idea that quantum physics plays a part in the way they work. I'd be delighted if you could spare the time to explain exactly what role quantum physics plays in my PC. < this might sound facetious, but it really isn't.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Wed May 04, 2016 11:11 am

coffin_dodger » Wed May 04, 2016 2:22 pm wrote:Dr Evil said:
and your computer wouldn't work without it


Genuinely interested in this - I've been 'into' computers for 25+ years and I had no idea that quantum physics plays a part in the way they work. I'd be delighted if you could spare the time to explain exactly what role quantum physics plays in my PC. < this might sound facetious, but it really isn't.


It seems though that you already don't accept quantum physics because it is too complex, so no such explanation would be possible, neither would you be delighted with such a complex explanation.
This is similar to how you suddenly backed rather arbitrarily out of a basement-level description of the components of the redshift.

Something can be salvaged here though, and that is to personally realise what your required level of understanding is. If you want a simple satisfying narrative, then don't expect this of science, even though, now and again, it can provide this.
This realisation could be said to be related to consciousness, just to remain on topic.

jakell » Sun Apr 24, 2016 9:11 am wrote:
coffin_dodger » Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:08 am wrote:Jackell said (re: Halton Arp)
jakell » Thu Apr 21, 2016 3:39 pm wrote:
Well, it's certainly an alternative explanation (sort of), but why do you think it is more convincing or credible?

Looking for reasons to disregard the conventional red shift explanations, especially as they fit in with several other area of physics.

Because my intuition tells me it is. I know that sounds like a joke to the rational mind. I guess I've become more 'romantic' in the second half of my life, swinging from hard-nosed realist in the first half. I still have moments of doubt - am I going mad, to see things so differently from how I used to? - but to leave behind the 'life is nasty, brutish and short' theory of existence (exemplifyed by the big bang theory - there was a massive explosion, the universe is chaotic and uncaring, we are governed by a set of immutable laws, there is only one lifetime and you should grab what you can for yourself as selfishly as possible - the sun will explode one and day and everything will be destroyed etc etc) -all of this serves to lock thoughts into a doomish and self-interest mind-set that I now feel trapped me.


Actually, and I pointed this out in a subsequent post, his theory is not an alternative, but an additional one.
There are already three components to the current redshift model:

1) Cosmological redshift (expansion of space)
2) Standard redshift (due to ordinary velocities)
3) Gravitational redshift (small)

So it can be seen we already have an inclusive scenario, to which Arp's can be added. Some work needs to be done on it to make this so, and any of the standard complaints by the 'Electric Universe' crowd won't cut any ice.. NASA etc aren't hiding their data, it's all open, and neither are they preventing people from working on this. No massive funding is needed as it all theoretical at this point.
It's worth pointing out that, if we throw out no. 1 (the one you don't like), we still have expansion, and hence the initial sea of elementary particles, and reconnecting back to the original anti-matter subject....



'Because my intuition tells me' was not an answer as you had already brought in Arp to the discussion. Can you show how Arp is an alternative ie how it excludes the others?
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby coffin_dodger » Wed May 04, 2016 11:32 am

Jakell said:
It seems though that you already don't accept quantum physics because it is too complex, so no such explanation would be possible, neither would you be delighted with such a complex explanation.


You're almost as slippery as AD, old boy.

No, really - please explain how quantum physics plays a role in my PC. Please. Hint: I already know you can't because it doesn't.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Wed May 04, 2016 12:26 pm

jakell » Wed May 04, 2016 3:11 pm wrote:
coffin_dodger » Wed May 04, 2016 2:22 pm wrote:Dr Evil said:
and your computer wouldn't work without it


Genuinely interested in this - I've been 'into' computers for 25+ years and I had no idea that quantum physics plays a part in the way they work. I'd be delighted if you could spare the time to explain exactly what role quantum physics plays in my PC. < this might sound facetious, but it really isn't.


It seems though that you already don't accept quantum physics because it is too complex, so no such explanation would be possible, neither would you be delighted with such a complex explanation.
This is similar to how you suddenly backed rather arbitrarily out of a basement-level description of the components of the redshift.

Something can be salvaged here though, and that is to personally realise what your required level of understanding is. If you want a simple satisfying narrative, then don't expect this of science, even though, now and again, it can provide this.
This realisation could be said to be related to consciousness, just to remain on topic.

jakell » Sun Apr 24, 2016 9:11 am wrote:
coffin_dodger » Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:08 am wrote:Jackell said (re: Halton Arp)
jakell » Thu Apr 21, 2016 3:39 pm wrote:
Well, it's certainly an alternative explanation (sort of), but why do you think it is more convincing or credible?

Looking for reasons to disregard the conventional red shift explanations, especially as they fit in with several other area of physics.

Because my intuition tells me it is. I know that sounds like a joke to the rational mind. I guess I've become more 'romantic' in the second half of my life, swinging from hard-nosed realist in the first half. I still have moments of doubt - am I going mad, to see things so differently from how I used to? - but to leave behind the 'life is nasty, brutish and short' theory of existence (exemplifyed by the big bang theory - there was a massive explosion, the universe is chaotic and uncaring, we are governed by a set of immutable laws, there is only one lifetime and you should grab what you can for yourself as selfishly as possible - the sun will explode one and day and everything will be destroyed etc etc) -all of this serves to lock thoughts into a doomish and self-interest mind-set that I now feel trapped me.


Actually, and I pointed this out in a subsequent post, his theory is not an alternative, but an additional one.
There are already three components to the current redshift model:

1) Cosmological redshift (expansion of space)
2) Standard redshift (due to ordinary velocities)
3) Gravitational redshift (small)

So it can be seen we already have an inclusive scenario, to which Arp's can be added. Some work needs to be done on it to make this so, and any of the standard complaints by the 'Electric Universe' crowd won't cut any ice.. NASA etc aren't hiding their data, it's all open, and neither are they preventing people from working on this. No massive funding is needed as it all theoretical at this point.
It's worth pointing out that, if we throw out no. 1 (the one you don't like), we still have expansion, and hence the initial sea of elementary particles, and reconnecting back to the original anti-matter subject....



'Because my intuition tells me' was not an answer as you had already brought in Arp to the discussion. Can you show how Arp is an alternative ie how it excludes the others?


I'm going to broach this because, even though I know you want a simple narrative (which is not possible here), it's important to try, not just sit back and take the piss.

DE's statement was a bit coarse because, as with fundamental laws, quantum physics would underlie everything, not just computers, so let's broaden it.... The only explanations for semiconductor action are via quantum mechanics, there are no others (that I know of), and after a point, integrated circuits got so small and complex that only quantum mechanical calculations could help the technology move on, towards the complex computer technology we have today.
To get past this you will have to find a non-QM explanation for the actions of semiconductors (exactly like the redshift example**), and especially one that will start to inform the technology. I am not aware of such an alternative, can you describe one?


** but on a micro rather than macro scale. If you baulk at basic redshift descriptions, then QM is certainly inaccessible, it's another level of complexity.
Last edited by jakell on Wed May 04, 2016 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby coffin_dodger » Wed May 04, 2016 12:46 pm

Muddying the waters with the red shift question is tedious and somewhat desperate - it has nothing to do with the claim that there are quantum physics taking place inside my PC. I asked you a very simple question: please explain how quantum actions are taking place inside my PC - which you have turned round into asking me to explain how there are not quantum actions taking place inside my PC. :rofl2

I know exactly how PCs work, but based on recent exchanges, I have to assume that you unaware of the world of difference between hard science (PC's) and theoretical science (quantum physics). I really can't see any point in continuing this conversation Jakell, as we are too far apart and entrenched in our own positions to bear any fruit.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 154 guests