|
Post by peanutfan on Mar 10, 2009 14:35:37 GMT -5
I've been doing some reading lately about new research that indicates consciousness might actually be a product of events taking place on the quantum level, and this has me thinking: If consciousness is, at its root, a quantum phenomena rather than purely physical, doesn't it bring up the possibility of consciousness without a physical body attached?
Should this be the case, I think it would go a long way toward explaining the nature of many things that currently fall outside the scope of modern science, such as God/s, ghosts, and even ESP phenomena such as telepathy. For example, once on the old board I postulated that telepathy could work by means of one person's brain "recieving" another's emitted brain waves like a radio; what if, instead, it was because the two subjects' consciousness became quantally entangled?
It also brings up questions of some things that I've long held a spiritual belief in, such as magic. Since Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle states that simple observation of an event affects the outcome of an event, how much greater could the effect be of an observer that was making a conscious effort to affect the outcome? Since, from a quantum point of view, everything is a miracle (the odds against events working out to produce the exact circumstances we now find ourselves in were astronomical), all it might take is the tiniest nudge to create the desired result. It would also mean that the observation of outsiders, especially skeptics who expected such efforts to fail, could have a negative influence, even when all efforts are taken to remove physical influence.
I will freely admit that I have only the loosest layman's grasp of many of the things I'm talking about, so if anything I've suggested flies directly in the face of science, please tell me so. But as I said in the "what do you identify as?" thread, I don't believe in the supernatural as such, only in phenomena that science hasn't explained yet, and these advances in quantum physics make me hopeful that such explanations could be just around the corner.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Mar 10, 2009 14:36:50 GMT -5
I've been doing some reading lately about new research that indicates consciousness might actually be a product of events taking place on the quantum level, and this has me thinking: If consciousness is, at its root, a quantum phenomena rather than purely physical, doesn't it bring up the possibility of consciousness without a physical body attached? Are quantum phenomena not physical? This part seems to display an incorrect view of odds, or a very strange definition of "miracle."
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Mar 10, 2009 16:30:43 GMT -5
Chiming in:
Firstly, can you cite the paper you are referring to? It would be enormously helpful to know where exactly this is coming from (and whether it is legitimate), and also to know what exactly I am arguing with.
However, just from your post, there are a few problems:
As AK pointed out, quantum phenomena ARE physical phenomena that simply occur within the microscopic universe. These phenomena manifest and are observable, hence their physical nature. Just because they don't manifest on the macroscopic level doesn't mean it isn't physical.
Secondly, according to Neuroscience in general, consciousness is generally thought to be the product of the interactions of the synaptic network that is our brain. Whilst consciousness is in itself virtual, the means to produce it is not. Very much like how computers create virtual environments by the means of manipulating electronic signals within physical hardware, the same can be thought of with the brain, albeit with different processes due to the completely different circumstances.
Ultimately, what drives our brain at the lowest level is chemistry, not quantum mechanics. Neurons don't operate in small enough scales as to be subject to quantum mechanical effects. Plus, there's a problem with the whole quantum entanglement idea. The fact is entangled systems are incredibly fragile and are subject to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, in which the mere measurement of the entangled state is enough to interfere and collapse the state, much like observing electrons is enough to collapse the wave-function inherent within the particles. This means one cannot use an entangled state to transmit information, because as soon as you try to extract that information from the entangled state, it breaks down (I had a friend explain this to me, as he is a BSc Physics Graduate). This means that a quantum interpretation of ESP is effectively ruled out by the very behaviours of Quantum Physics.
All in all, we have problems. You incorrectly portray the Uncertainty Principle into something that originally just states the predicament of measuring quantum states, to something of a rather unpopular interpretation of Quantum Physics. It is not consciousness that affects a quantum state, it is the act of trying to measure something, in which to 'measure' something like a particle, you need to have it interact with something else that we can use to extract data from. For example, light. Get light of a certain frequency to interact with, let's say, an electron, and you are able to measure it. But the problem comes that you cannot obtain accurate measurements of position and momentum at the same time. To have an accurate reading of one, the uncertainty of another must be accepted. For example, measuring the position of an electron disturbs its momentum as a consequence, so you can never have an accurate reading of both momentum and position because of the effect of observing the particle has.
Overall, it is not quantum mechanics that explains consciousness, nor does it offer explanations for things like ESP and so forth. For consciousness, you need to understand how neural and synaptic networks function, and to see how it occurs with biological organisms, you need neuroscience and biochemistry to explain the physical processes and constructs.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 10, 2009 16:39:50 GMT -5
Uhhh...peanutfan, all that might actually be possible, it might actually be the truth even, but where is the suport for your theory? "I think, maybe, and I suppose" mean exactly what to any thinking person?
You have a fairly wild idea based on a laymans understanding of certain scientific theories. Just like the creationists/conspiracy theorists you throw them out as if it were some kind of truth because you thought it.
That is at best loosely called a hypothesis, although generally a hypothesis must have some grounding in reality as based on observed phenom, yours does not have any. Once you have some demonstrable proof for your hypothesis that can be repeated and duplicated elsewhere by other scientists. That is when you publish your hypothesis in a peer reviewed journal and allow others to test your idea.
If they support you then your idea graduates from a hypothesis to a theory. Then many other scientists will obviously look at your new theory and attempt to either poke holes in it or prove it entirely wrong. That is how science works, the theories that withstand intense scrutiny and testing are those that remain...anything not submitted to peer review is just wild ass speculation, and usually are completely unsubstanstiated, just like yours...
While your ideas about conscience beyond death and on a sub-atomic level are interesting they are wholly unproven and in fact do not even have observable phenom to call them a hypothesis. Once you further your ideas to the point that they are testable to prove or falsify them by other scientists then they will qualify as science.
In the meantime you are just pulling ideas out of your ass as far as the rest of us are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Mar 10, 2009 16:47:08 GMT -5
Pretty sure peanutfan wasn't trying to propose a radical new theory that would overthrow science, or anything, aus. Quite sure, in fact. Just speculating and looking for support or correction for his fundamental assumptions. Pretty sure that's how you get to the "hypothesis" phase.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 10, 2009 17:07:29 GMT -5
Hmmm... Pretty sure peanutfan wasn't trying to propose a radical new theory that would overthrow science, or anything, aus. Quite sure, in fact. Just speculating and looking for support or correction for his fundamental assumptions. Pretty sure that's how you get to the "hypothesis" phase. How do you know? Sure sounded like an attempted explanation of a theory that should really be on CTSTDT to me...heh, maybe I'm just overly sensitive? Magic, ghosts, ESP, religion, telepathy, and consciousness are all somehow explained and normal according to quantum physics? That certainly sounds like a radical new theory to me, and I would like to see some supporting evidence. (Ohh, but thats right, there can be no evidence because Heisenburgs uncertainty priniciple states that in merely observeing any event we alter it. Therefore there can never be either proof or disprove that can be believed.)
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Mar 10, 2009 17:30:48 GMT -5
I read his post. Who is conspiring in this case, pray tell, and to what end? Sounds like you have a misplaced definition of "theory," and sounds like you didn't read my post very thoroughly. In the FSTDT Lounge, no less, PF is speculating, albeit based on an incorrect understanding of quantum mechanics and biology, about something that, in his view, may eventually be found by science. How is that different from being like "oh, maybe eventually we'll discover that chimps are our mental equals and we just don't understand their language," and if it's not, why don't you just correct his false assumptions and continue the discussion productively?
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Mar 10, 2009 17:33:41 GMT -5
(Ohh, but thats right, there can be no evidence because Heisenburgs uncertainty priniciple states that in merely observeing any event we alter it. Therefore there can never be either proof or disprove that can be believed.) UGH, this is wrong. The Uncertainty Principle deals with problem of gaining information out of a quantum state or particle, in which one can never get accurate information of both position and momentum of a particle at once. You trade the accuracy of one result for the other, and vice versa. Whilst there can be effects that interfere with a particle in such a way that it may lose the entangled state it is in, or the wave function gets collapsed, BUT, it isn't a case where we don't get the information we want. Just because we can't get all the information we may want at once doesn't mean that for whatever case it cannot be proven/disproven because the event gets altered, it just means there will always be a degree of uncertainty with regards to what we measure.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 10, 2009 17:52:59 GMT -5
Perhaps we will find that mice and dolphins are our mental superiors and came from other planets as in a certain fiction writers musings. Perhaps we will find that all the theorized quantum particles really are just tiny peices of an all powerful GOD! Perhaps you might allow others to express their complete disbelief without somehow trying to bring doubt back into the discussion...but I certainly doubt that ever happening.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 10, 2009 18:03:22 GMT -5
(Ohh, but thats right, there can be no evidence because Heisenburgs uncertainty priniciple states that in merely observeing any event we alter it. Therefore there can never be either proof or disprove that can be believed.) UGH, this is wrong. The Uncertainty Principle deals with problem of gaining information out of a quantum state or particle, in which one can never get accurate information of both position and momentum of a particle at once. You trade the accuracy of one result for the other, and vice versa. Whilst there can be effects that interfere with a particle in such a way that it may lose the entangled state it is in, or the wave function gets collapsed, BUT, it isn't a case where we don't get the information we want. Just because we can't get all the information we may want at once doesn't mean that for whatever case it cannot be proven/disproven because the event gets altered, it just means there will always be a degree of uncertainty with regards to what we measure. I'm still skeptical basically about the entire feild, Einstein didn't believe in it so why should I? When the unified feild theory is published and falsible...then maybe I'll pay more attention to getting it right. Until then?...it isn't much better than a hypothesis, considering the very limited evidence it has outside of estoric mathematics.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Mar 10, 2009 18:10:01 GMT -5
The question isn't whether he's right. (He's not!) The question is whether you're capable of contributing to a productive discussion about it. The answer is apparently no. Good to know.
For those who find speculations about the nature of reality and the ways in which science might answer as yet unanswered questions interesting, let the useful discussion continue. Blue, you seem to know more than I do about the subject - could you discuss whether PF's seeming variation on the teleological argument (calling everything a "miracle" because of odds) makes more sense at the quantum level than it does with regard to the existence of life?
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Mar 10, 2009 18:19:13 GMT -5
I'm still skeptical basically about the entire feild, Einstein didn't believe in it so why should I? When the unified feild theory is published and falsible...then maybe I'll pay more attention to getting it right. Until then?...it isn't much better than a hypothesis, considering the very limited evidence it has outside of estoric mathematics. Einstein isn't and never was an authority in Science, just one of many experts in the field. Do not ignore the work of Neils Bohr and Heisenberg just because one other scientist tried to poke holes in the idea. Hell, what Einstein did was what any other scientist worth his salt would have done, try to find errors and flaws with the Theory. Ironically, Schroedinger, when he used the cat analogy to point out what he thought was an error/flaw of Quantum Mechanics, never foresaw his analogy being used as an apt description of the behaviours of Quantum systems. Additionally, Heisenberg also questioned and stumped Schroedinger on a number of problems with his classical ideas on these behaviours. This is the field that brought you the advances in computers and technology we see today. Einstein himself is responsible for the development of the field, even though he later had objections with it. Just because it can only be visualised in maths does not mean it is only a convenient hypothesis, it just means that it is so counter-intuitive to our understanding of things that the only reasonable way to communicate these ideas effectively is through maths to describe the behaviours and systems. So please, for the unlove of Cthulhu, don't use the "Argument from Einstein" again.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 10, 2009 18:24:17 GMT -5
How would you possibly have a 'productive' discussion about a completely unprovable and unsupported idea?
It simply does not compute. What was I supposed to say, "well gee there fella that sounds mighty strange but you've convinced me by the conviction you showed when you said it?"
Seriously though, how should I have responded? Was I supposed to write a treatise on why his idea has no proof and is basically unprovable?
It just seemed easier to say that it was not science and was not provable nor disprovable, therefore how can I 'discuss' it? It is as much a complete myth as Shiva or the FSM or Jesus. There is no way to intelligently discuss the theories behind a myth, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how to do this?
|
|
|
Post by caretaker on Mar 10, 2009 18:31:11 GMT -5
*Ignores bickering* The Human Consciousness Project is dealing with hypotheses such as these. If you listen to the UN Symposium podcasts, you'll hear a discussion from qualified scientists from a variety of specialisations, including quantum physics, discussing the very nature of how thought might arise (it's not yet understood). Largely speaking, this hypothesis is something they want to try and investigate further. A famous example of research carried out on theory of global consciousness is the Global Consciousness Project, which has been running for over a decade. Results are interesting, even fascinating, but much more work needs to be done before conclusion could possibly be drawn. String theory is one of the theories that have attracted attention as providing a possible framework to support the non-localised consciousness hypothesis, which in turn supports the global consciousness hypothesis. Decision Augmentation Theory is here investigated as regards anomalous mental phenomena - I'll confess right now that I didn't read that one personally. A simple web search can provide you with parapsychological studies carried out on a huge variety of subjects - the background reading, exploring the controversy of results and criticisms, is a good place to start when tackling the idea of non-localised consciousness or thought produced at quantum level and its possible implications. And finally, it's just an idea, guys, and frankly? I'd rather hedge my bets on this than a two thousand year old fairytale that wants me to hate gay people. Just my two pence.
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Mar 10, 2009 18:31:41 GMT -5
For those who find speculations about the nature of reality and the ways in which science might answer as yet unanswered questions interesting, let the useful discussion continue. Blue, you seem to know more than I do about the subject - could you discuss whether PF's seeming variation on the teleological argument (calling everything a "miracle" because of odds) makes more sense at the quantum level than it does with regard to the existence of life? Actually, it doesn't make sense, that part. He's going into probabilities without really understanding what it means, which in itself is unrelated to Quantum Mechanics (the argument at least). He states that something, from perspective X, is so unlikely that it is a miracle. For example, out of a random binary generator, the likelihood of such a system coming up with the exact configuration of 10 0's is so unlikely, that it is a miracle. However, a sequence of 0100000000 is just as unlikely, and 01101011100 being equally unlikely. Any specific configuration is just as unlikely as the other, and it only seems like 0000000000 is more significant to 01101011100. In this case with Peanut, is that he is using Quantum Mechanics as the qualifier for his argument. The argument itself though is flawed.
|
|