|
Post by laughter on May 23, 2015 5:04:18 GMT -5
'dusty's misconception is that the two aren't linked, but they are. And that is the root of the misconception. If someone could prove that, they'd win a Nobel, because then they'd have done away with what's known as the "measurement problem", which isn't, as 'dusty thinks, the fact that classical equations emerge in the limit as distances and energies get large. That's actually quite well understood. No, the " measurement problem" is very simply the fact that there is no deterministic information available about a "particle" in between direct observations -- iow, that it acts like a wave when it's not being measured. Said another way, it is the act of observation itself, and not some physical characteristic of that act, that determines the state of the object. He read a book by this Khalili fellow that sold him quantum dechorence as the "solution" to the measurement problem and that's where he caught the false meme that the Geiger counter with no conscious observation could determine the state of the cat. A Geiger counter is central to and is actually used as the device to trigger the potential of the cats doom in the original experiment. Schrodinger used the cat to dramatize the fact that the readout on the counter may or may not have registered a decay upon opening the box. So there are two different sides to the philosophical debate. The mainstream view of the Copenhagen interpretation accepts the end of objectivity, and most people that are on that side of it have an interest in introducing the notion of consciousness into the abstract descriptions of reality that are the product of the science of Physics. Roger Penrose is a good example of someone who is relatively contemporary who holds that view. On the other side are peeps who would like to see a return to a hard objective realism. Copenhagen has been opposed since it's inception, and the original antagonist to it was Einstein. Kalili is following along in that tradition. Despite that constant opposition, It's been the standard interpretation for the past 90 years, and remains so today. This debate used to interest me a great deal. At this point I'm only it the dialog to dispel the obvious myths that peeps with agendas buy into and try to resell. Primary to this is the line where Physics ends and metaphysics begins. Secondary to it is the question of the current mainstream consensus, and the fact is that there is currently no mainstream consensus in the science of Physics that has re-established the assumption of objective material realism. Thanks for saying that so that I can understand. When it's objectivity that is being tested, it's tough to devise an objective experiment for it. I didn't quite get the logic on how dechoherence supposedly resolved the measurement problem. There might have been a bit of slight of hand there, but I wouldn't be the one to catch it. I understand why it's critical for science in general to hang onto objective realism, so there's a lot of motivation to find a way. You could say that there's currently a collective mind-split on that among scientists. Some of them recognize the nature of the work they're doing based on the collapse, some of them reject it. Some of the ones that do understand the implications even seem to have turned that understanding inward. What's come to my attention over the past few years is the depth of the penetration of the fact of the collapse into that "collective unconscious" thingy that you once pointed out to me was first coined by Jung. We see this manifested in pop culture, in the movies for instance. Sometimes it's not so unconscious and actually quite overt and up front, like in "Birdman", for example.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 23, 2015 5:33:52 GMT -5
'dusty's misconception is that the two aren't linked, but they are. And that is the root of the misconception. If someone could prove that, they'd win a Nobel, because then they'd have done away with what's known as the "measurement problem", which isn't, as 'dusty thinks, the fact that classical equations emerge in the limit as distances and energies get large. That's actually quite well understood. No, the " measurement problem" is very simply the fact that there is no deterministic information available about a "particle" in between direct observations -- iow, that it acts like a wave when it's not being measured. Said another way, it is the act of observation itself, and not some physical characteristic of that act, that determines the state of the object. He read a book by this Khalili fellow that sold him quantum dechorence as the "solution" to the measurement problem and that's where he caught the false meme that the Geiger counter with no conscious observation could determine the state of the cat. A Geiger counter is central to and is actually used as the device to trigger the potential of the cats doom in the original experiment. Schrodinger used the cat to dramatize the fact that the readout on the counter may or may not have registered a decay upon opening the box. So there are two different sides to the philosophical debate. The mainstream view of the Copenhagen interpretation accepts the end of objectivity, and most people that are on that side of it have an interest in introducing the notion of consciousness into the abstract descriptions of reality that are the product of the science of Physics. Roger Penrose is a good example of someone who is relatively contemporary who holds that view. On the other side are peeps who would like to see a return to a hard objective realism. Copenhagen has been opposed since it's inception, and the original antagonist to it was Einstein. Kalili is following along in that tradition. Despite that constant opposition, It's been the standard interpretation for the past 90 years, and remains so today. This debate used to interest me a great deal. At this point I'm only it the dialog to dispel the obvious myths that peeps with agendas buy into and try to resell. Primary to this is the line where Physics ends and metaphysics begins. Secondary to it is the question of the current mainstream consensus, and the fact is that there is currently no mainstream consensus in the science of Physics that has re-established the assumption of objective material realism. Well stated, the question is where does science go from here? The sciences of Consciousness, Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Immunology, Neuroimmunology, Psycho-neuroimmunology, have all expanded their fields from the mind being a philosophical and psychological concept, to one that includes the possibility that the mind is also physical in nature. The conditioned pattern of the science buff that's here finds that all very exciting and interesting , butt Billy Shakes, as always, put it best with Prospero's epilogue in the Tempest. It's fun and interesting to speculate about what will come of any sort of fusion of objective and subjective principles in the discipline of professional investigation of reality. It's almost as if we'd have to invent a new word for that, isn't it? All that speculation would be necessarily both based on and expressed relative to what we already know and the cycles we've seen repeat in history over time. It's tempting to analogize the present day to the late 19th century when that patent clerk resigned about the same time Einstein published special relativity. Or, maybe, we're living in the time of some modern-day Descartes on the Eve of the Enlightenment in Europe. On the other hand, perhaps imagining either possibility is just the same sort of generational conceit that leads peeps to form doomsday cults or spend time on rituals to precipitate a mass ascension of consciousness. It's also tempting to predict that eventually some theory will unify QM + GR and just as tempting to predict that whatever that theory is, it won't be the last. It's readily observable that any and every conceptual answer to a question about reality revealed by science has given rise to multiple new questions, but the fact is that just because we haven't yet encountered a final theory of reality doesn't mean that we might not yet, or already have. It's the same problem as proving an absence: we wouldn't know until the end of time. One things for sure, the collective intellect will continue to move, astound, create, destroy, terrorize and heal, and it does seem to be sort of evolving over time as it does this, but that appearance is just a trick of the light had by misconceiving the intellect as a movement separate from the rest of humanity.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 23, 2015 5:36:29 GMT -5
A)Science doesn't know how that happens. B)Even if it were true, it doesn't imply consciousness is inherent in all matter. C)You're being a jerk. Is there a reason for this? A)I didn't say science knows how consciousness arises from the brain, I said that's the standard model of Reality. B)No one is saying it's true, it's not provable, just like the "Universe is in Consciousness" isn't provable. C) There is always a reason. Could that reason be that you're frustrated with E's responses to you?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 23, 2015 5:38:52 GMT -5
Rocks and squishy grey matter are made out of the same stuff, same as stars and planets. Is this something new to you? The standard model of reality states that consciousness is a function of the brain, which is made out of, you guessed it, squishy grey matter... A)Science doesn't know how that happens. B)Even if it were true, it doesn't imply consciousness is inherent in all matter. C)You're being a jerk. Is there a reason for this?
|
|
|
Post by zin on May 23, 2015 5:43:08 GMT -5
A)Science doesn't know how that happens. B)Even if it were true, it doesn't imply consciousness is inherent in all matter. C)You're being a jerk. Is there a reason for this? Is that you now, L?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 23, 2015 5:46:49 GMT -5
Is that you now, L? Nah .. only if 'dusty insists I keep debating. That was a jibe at source for hounding E' with his existential questioning.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2015 9:26:20 GMT -5
Thanks for saying that so that I can understand. When it's objectivity that is being tested, it's tough to devise an objective experiment for it. I didn't quite get the logic on how dechoherence supposedly resolved the measurement problem. There might have been a bit of slight of hand there, but I wouldn't be the one to catch it. I understand why it's critical for science in general to hang onto objective realism, so there's a lot of motivation to find a way. You could say that there's currently a collective mind-split on that among scientists. Some of them recognize the nature of the work they're doing based on the collapse, some of them reject it. Some of the ones that do understand the implications even seem to have turned that understanding inward. What's come to my attention over the past few years is the depth of the penetration of the fact of the collapse into that "collective unconscious" thingy that you once pointed out to me was first coined by Jung.
We see this manifested in pop culture, in the movies for instance. Sometimes it's not so unconscious and actually quite overt and up front, like in "Birdman", for example.From my perspective, science is an expression of the collective consciousness of humanity, such that the age of reason gave birth to Newtonian physics, while an expansion beyond those mechanical, logical limits led to Einstein's questioning of our most fundamental assumptions, and now Quantum physics is pushing at the boundaries of objective reality itself. I've mentioned before that there's a theoretical 'meeting point' between physical science, philosophy, metaphysics and theology, and this may well mark the dramatic shift in human consciousness that many are anticipating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 9:43:56 GMT -5
A)Science doesn't know how that happens. B)Even if it were true, it doesn't imply consciousness is inherent in all matter. C)You're being a jerk. Is there a reason for this? A)I didn't say science knows how consciousness arises from the brain, I said that's the standard model of Reality. B)No one is saying it's true, it's not provable, just like the "Universe is in Consciousness" isn't provable. C)There is always a reason. I think you are still not clear, you are still believing objective reality, consciousness is not arises from brain, Consciousness is the base in which brain appears.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2015 9:47:31 GMT -5
A)I didn't say science knows how consciousness arises from the brain, I said that's the standard model of Reality. B)No one is saying it's true, it's not provable, just like the "Universe is in Consciousness" isn't provable. C)There is always a reason. I think you are still not clear, you are still believing objective reality, consciousness is not arises from brain, Consciousness is the base in which brain appears. Source is busy mixing contexts at the moment, which is resulting in some confusion, but he claims to be speaking in the context of the scientific model of reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 9:53:56 GMT -5
I think you are still not clear, you are still believing objective reality, consciousness is not arises from brain, Consciousness is the base in which brain appears. Source is busy mixing contexts at the moment, which is resulting in some confusion, but he claims to be speaking in the context of the scientific model of reality. That's the main reason I kept on telling him to get to the common ground, but when I ask him he seems to be getting something about what we mean, but later he goes to the same place where he was. I don't think he is understanding what we are speaking here.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 23, 2015 11:15:47 GMT -5
I think you are still not clear, you are still believing objective reality, consciousness is not arises from brain, Consciousness is the base in which brain appears. Source is busy mixing contexts at the moment, which is resulting in some confusion, but he claims to be speaking in the context of the scientific model of reality. It's natural for the intellect to spin on the chegg.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 23, 2015 11:18:29 GMT -5
A)I didn't say science knows how consciousness arises from the brain, I said that's the standard model of Reality. B)No one is saying it's true, it's not provable, just like the "Universe is in Consciousness" isn't provable. C)There is always a reason. I think you are still not clear, you are still believing objective reality, consciousness is not arises from brain, Consciousness is the base in which brain appears. I don't think that source believes that. From what I can see he's cognizant of the fact that either way you look at it as to which is primary, the intellect sees a paradox. If the brain arises in/as consciousness, then anyone looking for a conceptual resolution is left with your question about where consciousness resides.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 12:38:13 GMT -5
A)I didn't say science knows how consciousness arises from the brain, I said that's the standard model of Reality. B)No one is saying it's true, it's not provable, just like the "Universe is in Consciousness" isn't provable. C)There is always a reason. I think you are still not clear, you are still believing objective reality, consciousness is not arises from brain, Consciousness is the base in which brain appears. I am clear about psychosis, but I'm talking about how reality is normally conceived, which is the basis for the discussion laffy and pilgrim were having on physics. You and enigma are on the outside of that discussion throwing psychosis rocks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2015 12:59:09 GMT -5
A)I didn't say science knows how consciousness arises from the brain, I said that's the standard model of Reality. B)No one is saying it's true, it's not provable, just like the "Universe is in Consciousness" isn't provable. C) There is always a reason. Could that reason be that you're frustrated with E's responses to you? My reason is a cytolytic argument.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 23, 2015 13:04:44 GMT -5
You could say that there's currently a collective mind-split on that among scientists. Some of them recognize the nature of the work they're doing based on the collapse, some of them reject it. Some of the ones that do understand the implications even seem to have turned that understanding inward. What's come to my attention over the past few years is the depth of the penetration of the fact of the collapse into that "collective unconscious" thingy that you once pointed out to me was first coined by Jung.
We see this manifested in pop culture, in the movies for instance. Sometimes it's not so unconscious and actually quite overt and up front, like in "Birdman", for example.From my perspective, science is an expression of the collective consciousness of humanity, such that the age of reason gave birth to Newtonian physics, while an expansion beyond those mechanical, logical limits led to Einstein's questioning of our most fundamental assumptions, and now Quantum physics is pushing at the boundaries of objective reality itself. I've mentioned before that there's a theoretical 'meeting point' between physical science, philosophy, metaphysics and theology, and this may well mark the dramatic shift in human consciousness that many are anticipating. Well, hey dude that sh!ts, like, all done.
|
|