Questioning Consciousness

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Wed May 04, 2016 12:51 pm

coffin_dodger » Wed May 04, 2016 4:46 pm wrote: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.


Quantum mechanics supplies the only explanation for the actions of semiconductors, a host of electronics including computer chip technology follows from this.

There's no entrenchment, just basic open source science. If you can describe an alternative explanation for the action of semiconductors (like the redshift alternative) then I will be pleased to hear it and we can make comparisons.
" 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 slimmouse » Wed May 04, 2016 1:04 pm

Can somebody explain to me where this whole quantum mechanics thing fits in with the fact that the universe requires conscious observation in order to actually fucking exist?

The Metaphorical chicken came way before the egg here IMHO
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Wed May 04, 2016 1:11 pm

slimmouse » Wed May 04, 2016 5:04 pm wrote:Can somebody explain to me where this whole quantum mechanics thing fits in with the fact that the universe requires conscious observation in order to actually fucking exist?

The Metaphorical chicken came way before the egg here IMHO


Actually, quantum mechanics is only significant on a very very tiny scale, on the macro scale it can be disregarded.

The example you give here is more to do with metaphysical speculations along the lines of "if a tree falls in a forest when no-one is around, does it make a sound?"
" 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 backtoiam » Wed May 04, 2016 1:24 pm

Movement is a key to life. Everything that is alive moves. Yes, that tree you are looking at moves all day long.

There is a tidal movement that happens as surely as the sun comes up and the moon arrives.

The sap comes in during the morning and shrinks back down with the sunset. Everything knows what time it is.

It may not be aware of the time, but it reacts, everything does.

The ether is blue purple colored. It hangs in the air like a fog. It connects all this together. There is also another component that hooks the ether to the magnetic rain and it looks like dry brown rice that falls from the sky. This comes from the Sun. It rains down all the time.

These two work in synergy. Literally. Your brain is a radio. It works roughly in the 400 megahertz range.
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
backtoiam
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:22 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby slimmouse » Wed May 04, 2016 1:26 pm

Hey Jackell,

I seriously think, with respect that if you want to talk current state of the art science, then you truly need to accept the currently very apparent fact that absolutely nothing exists without apparently very conscious observation.

So when we werent around to understand that fact, then who was running the show?
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Wed May 04, 2016 1:32 pm

backtoiam » Wed May 04, 2016 5:24 pm wrote:Movement is a key to life. Everything that is alive moves. Yes, that tree you are looking at moves all day long.

There is a tidal movement that happens as surely as the sun comes up and the moon arrives.

The sap comes in during the morning and shrinks back down with the sunset. Everything knows what time it is.

It may not be aware of the time, but it reacts, everything does.

The ether is blue purple colored. It hangs in the air like a fog. It connects all this together. There is also another component that hooks the ether to the magnetic rain and it looks like dry brown rice that falls from the sky. This comes from the Sun. It rains down all the time.

These two work in synergy. Literally. Your brain is a radio. It works roughly in the 400 megahertz range.

In the same spirit, here's a response to the tree/sound thing that we'd been throwing around for ages on my previous forum.

I plumped for the answer that it does not make a sound (in an effort to move things forward).
I said that, of course it makes waves in the air, but these in themselves are not sound, sound is an experienced thing needing an eardrum to vibrate and all the other paraphernalia to transmit it to our brains and then interpret it as a sound. without us there, none of that happens.

Some might say that this is kicking the can down the road, but in the spirit of BTIA's opening line "movement is a key to life", so at least we now have a moving can.
" 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 backtoiam » Wed May 04, 2016 1:39 pm

Absolutely. I agree. Without an ear drum what is sound but a wave? There has to be an instrument to receive the sound. That would be an ear drum.
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
backtoiam
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:22 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Wed May 04, 2016 1:40 pm

slimmouse » Wed May 04, 2016 5:26 pm wrote:Hey Jackell,

I seriously think, with respect that if you want to talk current state of the art science, then you truly need to accept the currently very apparent fact that absolutely nothing exists without apparently very conscious observation.

So when we werent around to understand that fact, then who was running the show?


The question to ask is "does accepting this help us do better science?" and as far as I'm aware it doesn't, at least on our scale of things.

If someone could demonstrate how this using this approach produces more useful science, then I would be interested, until then it seems to be more use in the realm of metaphysics

ETA: 'State of the Art' science is beyond me and I stick with the stuff from a century ago. thankfully this includes stuff like redshift of galaxies, quantum mechanics and relativity, so it's hardly pedestrian. If people didn't mix up this tried and tested stuff with modern wonderings we'd be able to have better conversations.
Last edited by jakell on Wed May 04, 2016 1:44 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 slimmouse » Wed May 04, 2016 1:43 pm

jakell » 04 May 2016 17:40 wrote:
slimmouse » Wed May 04, 2016 5:26 pm wrote:Hey Jackell,

I seriously think, with respect that if you want to talk current state of the art science, then you truly need to accept the currently very apparent fact that absolutely nothing exists without apparently very conscious observation.

So when we werent around to understand that fact, then who was running the show?


The question to ask is "does accepting this help us do better science?" and as far as I'm aware it doesn't, at least on our scale of things.

If someone could demonstrate how this using this approach produces more useful science, then I would be interested, until then it seems to be more use in the realm of metaphysics


My problem is this. You are separating issues into categories that desperately need to be synergised, because from the best of current scientific understanding, Consciousness seems to hold all the answers in order that each and every last one of us might win the farm. ( in order to keep it brief).

Now, if everybody truly knew that. :thumbsup
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Wed May 04, 2016 1:53 pm

slimmouse » Wed May 04, 2016 5:43 pm wrote:
jakell » 04 May 2016 17:40 wrote:
slimmouse » Wed May 04, 2016 5:26 pm wrote:Hey Jackell,

I seriously think, with respect that if you want to talk current state of the art science, then you truly need to accept the currently very apparent fact that absolutely nothing exists without apparently very conscious observation.

So when we werent around to understand that fact, then who was running the show?


The question to ask is "does accepting this help us do better science?" and as far as I'm aware it doesn't, at least on our scale of things.

If someone could demonstrate how this using this approach produces more useful science, then I would be interested, until then it seems to be more use in the realm of metaphysics


My problem is this. You are separating issues into categories that desperately need to be synergised, because from the best of current scientific understanding, Consciousness seems to hold all the answers to win the farm. ( in order to keep it brief)


Desperately?

I know I use analysis, but it's merely a tool. I'm comforted by the fact that most people use analysis when approaching large problems, and not just in science, so it's not just me.
Analysis doesn't have the final world anyway. it's just a way in.

I'm still wondering if you think that believing that the world doesn't exist when we are not conscious of it enables us to do better science.
" 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 slimmouse » Wed May 04, 2016 2:00 pm

.

I'm still wondering if you think that believing that the world doesn't exist when we are not conscious of it enables us to do better science.


There you go again, reducing it all to speculation (belief). Shouldnt that fact be a priority in our understanding of why we are actually here?

What percentage of the earths population have been educated on that fact?
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Wed May 04, 2016 2:06 pm

slimmouse » Wed May 04, 2016 6:00 pm wrote:.

I'm still wondering if you think that believing that the world doesn't exist when we are not conscious of it enables us to do better science.


There you go again, reducing it all to speculation (belief). Shouldnt that fact be a priority in our understanding of why we are actually here?

What percentage of the earths population have been educated on that fact?


Actually, I was limiting it to the world of science, which was what you originally asked me.

Outside of science, I dunno, the question has become to broad for me. I would still ask myself if such a thing helps or hinders my relation to the world and the people in it ..constantly wondering if they are really there, and therefore don't matter, might impede me a bit, we're getting into sociopath territory here.
" 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 jakell » Wed May 04, 2016 2:41 pm

jakell » Wed May 04, 2016 5:53 pm wrote:
I know I use analysis, but it's merely a tool. I'm comforted by the fact that most people use analysis when approaching large problems, and not just in science, so it's not just me.
Analysis doesn't have the final world anyway. it's just a way in.

I'm still wondering if you think that believing that the world doesn't exist when we are not conscious of it enables us to do better science.


This recent talk of analysis has given me an excuse to return to something I posted earlier.

This is a good use of analysis in order to produce a wider perspective and hence a different synthesis. It's about as simple as it gets and David Chalmers produces a good amount of clarity by separating some theories of consciousness into the 'easy problem' (Dennet et al) and the hard problem (Hameroff et al), thereby producing a sort of synthesis by putting them at least under the same roof..
Of course, everyone is still not happy, but it's an improvement:

jakell » Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:06 am wrote:This is a long video, but I'm posting it mainly because of David Chalmers' section at the beginning. He draws a good framework around the various and competing approaches to consciousness, including the Quantum theories of Hameroff et al which may cause some to think WTF? (W being 'why' here).

He makes a very good move in talking of the hard problem of consciousness, thereby encompassing both the materialist/computational models (easy) and subjective, experiential mysteries of qualia etc (the hard problems), and giving both equal credence, so they don't have to be exclusive.



Daniel Dennett seems not to favour the inclusive approach, and states that there is no hard problem I found him quite clear and likeable and I reckon his stuff is worth a look (even if he is just considering the 'easy' problems)

A drawback with this video is that it cuts out the slides used, and they get referred to a lot. It was possible to 'imagine' these with Chalmers and Dennett as their talks included the necessary detail. Hoffman's talk was also good (the beer bottle beetles for instance...1:30:45) but I foundered in the mathematical modelling section which needed the slides
" 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 DrEvil » Wed May 04, 2016 3:53 pm

coffin_dodger » Wed May 04, 2016 6:46 pm wrote: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.


About quantum mechanics and computes, here's a decent explanation:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... -computers

Quantum physics are not theoretical. The double slit experiment wouldn't work without it, and people working on cutting edge computer chips have to take it into account or things just don't work.
Some banks are already using quantum encryption, Dwave has a working quantum computer (there's some controversy around it, but most people agree there's quantum effects involved), videos have been posted on this very site of quantum levitation etc.


@slimmouse: That entire argument (universe requires observer) is based on - you guessed it - quantum mechanics! :yay
(The probability wave collapses when observed and becomes an actual particle).
"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 DrEvil » Wed May 04, 2016 3:59 pm

jakell » Wed May 04, 2016 7:11 pm wrote:
slimmouse » Wed May 04, 2016 5:04 pm wrote:Can somebody explain to me where this whole quantum mechanics thing fits in with the fact that the universe requires conscious observation in order to actually fucking exist?

The Metaphorical chicken came way before the egg here IMHO


Actually, quantum mechanics is only significant on a very very tiny scale, on the macro scale it can be disregarded.

The example you give here is more to do with metaphysical speculations along the lines of "if a tree falls in a forest when no-one is around, does it make a sound?"


Not quite true:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... icrophone/
Macro-Weirdness: "Quantum Microphone" Puts Naked-Eye Object in 2 Places at Once

A new device tests the limits of Schrödinger's cat

PORTLAND, Ore.—What's the sound of one molecule clapping? Researchers have demonstrated a device that can pick up single quanta of mechanical vibration similar to those that shake molecules during chemical reactions, and have shown that the device itself, which is the width of a hair, acts as if it exists in two places at once—a "quantum weirdness" feat that so far had only been observed at the scale of molecules.

"This is a milestone," says Wojciech Zurek, a theorist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. "It confirms what many of us believe, but some continue to resist—that our universe is 'quantum to the core'."

Physicists have long known that, following the laws of quantum mechanics, objects at the scale of atoms or smaller can exist in multiple simultaneous states. For example, a single electron can move along multiple different paths or an atom can be placed in two different places, simultaneously. This so-called superposition of states should in principle apply to larger objects, as well, as in the proverbial thought experiment in which a cat is simultaneously dead and alive. And in recent years various teams have shown that the weird phenomenon does occur among objects as big as molecules, and also in truly macroscopic systems such as electrical currents in superconductors.

In the new experiment Aaron O'Connell, a graduate student at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and his co-workers have shown for the first time that larger objects can also be in two places at once. "It tells us that quantum mechanics works for macroscopic objects in space," says O'Connell, who presented the results here at a meeting of the American Physical Society. The results were also published online Wednesday in Nature. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)

The team used computer-chip manufacturing techniques to create a mechanical resonator—akin to a small tuning fork. The device is a piece of piezoelectric material (a material that expands or contracts in the presence of an electric field as well as generates an electrical field when put under stress) sandwiched between two layers of aluminum, which act as electrodes. It is one micron thick and 40 microns long, just enough to be visible "with your naked eye," O'Connell says.

The resonator's electrodes are attached to an electronic readout based on superconducting circuits, and the whole contraption is kept in a vacuum and cooled to within 20 thousandths of a degree above absolute zero. But the electronic circuitry can also be used to apply a voltage to the electrodes, so that the team can get the resonator to expand and contract at will. This motion takes place at a characteristic, or resonant, frequency of six gigahertz, or six billion cycles per second. (Tuning forks also have a resonant frequency—in the order of kilohertz—but the mode of resonant vibration in that case is to oscillate sideways rather than to expand and contract.)

The team's first result was to show that at such chilly temperatures the width, or amplitude, of the resonator's vibration becomes quantized—in other words, there is a small amount of vibrational energy, called a phonon, below which the resonator is essentially still. The existence of discrete packets of energy is a hallmark of quantum behavior, and phonons are the mechanical equivalent of light's photons—they are the ultimate, indivisible quanta of vibration, whether thermal or acoustic.

Next, the team put the superconducting circuit into a superposition of two states, one with a current and the other one without. Correspondingly, the resonator was in a superposition of vibrating and not vibrating. These quantum states continued for about six nanoseconds—about as long as the team expected—before fading away.

In a vibrating state each atom in the resonator only moves by an extremely small distance—less than the size of the atom itself. Thus, in the superposition of states the resonator is never really in two totally distinct places. But still, the experiment showed that a large object (the resonator is made of about 10 trillion atoms) can display just as much quantum weirdness as single atoms do. "Yup, quantum mechanics still works," says U.C.S.B.'s Andrew Cleland, O'Connell's co-author and adviser. As to how the day-to-day reality of objects that we observe, such as furniture and fruit, emerges from such a different and exotic quantum world, that remains a mystery.

In addition to its theoretical implications, the device could also find applications in the study of phonons that occur in nature, because a phonon that perturbs the resonator can be detected through the electronic circuit—it is essentially a quantum microphone. "This is a fantastically sensitive detector of acoustic vibration," Cleland says. In principle, one could even place molecules on the resonator and "hear them" interact, chemically or otherwise.
"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)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests