And yet you don't actually cite any such studies, just some essays of a philosophical bent. Like this one...
Yes I did ie the other paper mentions Wheelers experiments which have been scientifically supported.
Remarkably, Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment (Wheeler 1978)—where a choice made now by an observer can change or edit the past of a photon—has been experimentally confirmed and published in the prestigious journal Science (Jacques et al. 2007):
Finally, the human mindHuman mind faces its own nature. By extending the information-theoretic paradigmParadigminformation-theoretic and participatory, the informational nature of consciousness is uncovered. This gives rise to the very first formal description of...
link.springer.com
The article you are referring to mentions this
As our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.
To some physicists, this indicates that what we call “matter,” with its solidity and concreteness—is an illusion; that only the mathematical apparatus they devise in their theories is truly real, not the perceived world the apparatus was created to describe in the first place. From their point of view, such a counterintuitive conclusion is an implication of theory, not a conspicuously narcissistic and self-defeating proposition.
In other words for some physicists the evidence for a non-material reality at the very bottom naturally leads to theories about the non-material basis for reality like Information, Mind or Consciousness. Qunatum mechanics has undermined the (billiard ball schema) and a paradigm shift is occuring into the non-material basis for reality. They are just following where the evdience is going.
"The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American."
You sure get a lot of mileage out of this ~5-year-old essay which is nothing more than an add for his book.
Yet Scientific American published the paper,. If it was pseudoscience then Scientific American would not entertain the idea. Using the age of the paper is also irrelevant, academic standards allow up to 10 years as a general rule but some papers 50 years old can be verified science. You need to address the contents of the paper.
The same ideas have been published in many journals and is becoming more popular in mainstream science.
Again, you fail to produce this "evidence".
The evidence comes from those pioneers like Wheeler if you are willing to research them. Wigner is another whose experiements have been scientifically supported that the observer can influence reality and that Mind/consciousness is fundemnetal..
The “von Neumann–Wigner interpretation”, also described as “consciousness causes collapse” of Ψ, postulates that consciousness is an essential factor in quantum measurements. Časlav Brukner at the University of Vienna showed that, under certain assumptions, Wigner's idea can be used to formally prove that measurements in quantum mechanics are subjective to observers.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html
A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality
Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.
Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.
www.technologyreview.com
Modern day arguements
A recent article at New Scientist treats panpsychism as a serious idea in science.
mindmatters.ai
Making Sense of the Mental Universe
I have proposed an idealist framework as ontological underpinning for the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to this framework, a universal mind is the sole ontological primitive underlying all reality.
http://ispcjournal.org/journals/2017-19/Kastrup_19.pdf
Tononi's theory of Integrated Information Theory (IIT), published in the journal BMC Neuroscience, is one of a small class of promising models of consciousness. “IIT is a very mathematical theory,”
https://www.space.com/is-the-universe-conscious
All you really have is a bunch of "mushy" quotes of bewilderment about the odd nature of QM. These are no more evidence than the essay posted above.
Mushy quotes. The quotes are really a summarized statement about what the science shows according to these physicists rather than off the cuff quotes. They have a lot of thought and testing behind them. Do you really think Plank was being mushy when he spoke about QM. That what he said could be just taken as mush and not have any substance.
I mean Stapp had over 60 years of working in QM and consciousness. Do you think he says what he says lightly with having some evdience or arguement. Its like saying a doctor who says smoking causes health problems is quoting from the evdience and not just making a mushy quote with no evidence. All these physicisys quoted out of what the scientific evdience was showing. I would have thought you knew this about these physicists like for example Plank is well known in QM so his position should be well known. Or “von Neumann–Wigner interpretation” of QM. Surely you know of this and that its not based on mush.
And yet consciousness can only be detected in things with brains. Wonder why?
Like radio waves can be detected in radios. If what we don't know about consciousness is not a reason to wonder then we are not wondering enough. Wondering is what scientists have been doing when it comes to consciousness because they cannot work it out.
Consciousness cannot be detected in brains, the actual neurons and connections they are just correlated with consciousness. There is no conscious experience of color or music in neurons. Neuron activity is just the physical behaviour of conscious thinking. You can't point to anywhere in the brain and say that is the experience of red. There is no color red in the brain, there is no sunset in the brain that gives the experience of awe.
Consciousness can only be measured by the actual experience itself from the subject. And thats why science, measuring brain activity can never explain consciousness. Thats why its called the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' because your trying to use a quantitative measure on something that is of qualitative measure.
And there is some evdience for consciousness beyond brain.
That's an assumption and there is no basis for it.
Why when theres a growing body of research and ideas around the universe, nature and reality being linked to Information, Math, Knowledge and Mind. The reason being that is where the evdience is pointing so its not just an assumption. In fact the Mind/Information paradigmatic shift in thinking seems to render more simple arguements that can account for the many Hard Problems the naturalistic and materialist view faces.
The Universe Speaks in Numbers
The Universe Speaks in Numbers | Not Even Wrong
And yet you don't cite even their opinions. (And that's all these are -- opinions.)
Their qualified opinions from those who seem to know what they are talking about. I mean once again you should know this as its common knowledge among Mathmaticians. If you want to object then you need to understand what the opposition is saying.
I like Henry Stapp as he seems to understand the link between QM and consciousness and makes a good arguement for why interpreting the evidence points to Mind, to conscious observers influencing reality.
“From the point of view of the mathematics of quantum theory it makes no sense to treat a measuring device as intrinsically different from the collection of atomic constituents that make it up. A device is just another part of the physical universe… Moreover, the conscious thoughts of a human observer ought to be causally connected most directly and immediately to what is happening in his brain, not to what is happening out at some measuring device.
ontology is always defined by epistemology which is primary. In simple terms, knowledge (a faculty of the human mind) is primary and matter secondary (i.e., Stapp argues for “the primacy of consciousness”).
As we argued previously in the context of psychophysical/introspective measurements, we are not just passively recording but actively creating physical/psychological observables. In this context it has been argued that physics faces its final frontier – consciousness (H. Stapp, 2007).
According to Stapp, two factors seem to be involved in any measurement: the observer (the one who is asking the question) and the observed (i.e., matter/nature). However, according to Stapp (who was a collaborator of Werner Heisenberg), quantum theory transcends this dualistic dichotomy between epistemology and ontology because it was realized that the only “thing” that really existed is knowledge. That is, ontology is always defined by epistemology which is primary. In simple terms, knowledge (a faculty of the human mind) is primary and matter secondary (i.e., Stapp argues for “the primacy of consciousness”).
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1_14
Who is chalmers? He must be a realy important scientist if we've never heard of him.
Lol I would have thought if you have done any research on consciousness you would know David Chalmers. Perhaps one of the worlds most famous philosophers and cognitive scientists on consciousness. Chalmers came up with the idea of the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' and the Zombie thought experiement relating to consciousness.
David Chalmers - Wikipedia
