The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[stevevw]

It's called quantum woo because it uses the concept of 'quantum weirdness' to make fantastical claims or speculations that are not remotely supported by the quantum formalism. It's presumably born out of wishful thinking and ignorance of quantum mechanics. That quantum mechanics seems weird does not justify invoking it for any arbitrary weirdness you can imagine or discover.

Fair enough, I happen to think that if this is what quantum woo is then it is not done by religious people alone but alos scientists so in some ways it is the scientists who are creating the woo themselves.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Fair enough, I happen to think that if this is what quantum woo is then it is not done by religious people alone but alos scientists so in some ways it is the scientists who are creating the woo themselves.

For example? which scientists are creating quantum woo?

 

[Kylie]

No way. It is not a life, and is justified to be exterminated (i.e. genocide).

But we've already figured out that your definition of life - that is has something circulating - is not a very good definition.

 

[juvenissun]

But we've already figured out that your definition of life - that is has something circulating - is not a very good definition.

It is a better definition. It is better than yours.

 

[Kylie]

It is a better definition. It is better than yours.

No it isn't.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is a better definition. It is better than yours.

No, you're definition is utter rubbish. By your 'definition', a car is a living organism.

 

[tas8831]

I love the title of this thread - "The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed "

In other words:

"The Fossil Record Proves the Origin of Species as described initially by Darwin, Not the Origin of Species as described initially by Darwin"

 

[stevevw]

For example? which scientists are creating quantum woo?

well according to some peoples definition of woo this would include many prominant scientists like John Wheeler who established the ideas of Black Holes and worm holes in space time, and has worked with Feynman, Bohr and Albert Einstein. Roger Penrose who has worked with Hawkins and Stuart Hameroff, Francis Crick who is most famous for discovering the structure of DNA, Max Planck a physicist who originated quantum theory, David Bohm who contributed to quantum physics theory, Erwin Schrödinger pioneer in quantum physics and noble prize winner, Wolfgang Pauli who formulated the quantum theory, Pascual Jordan who was a pioneer in quantum mechanics and developed quantum field theory.

Others like Erich Neumann, Christof Koch, Giulio Tononi, Dean Radin, Thomas Nagal, Russell Targ, David Chalmers, and of course the infamous Robert Lanza. There are 100’s if not 1000’s of psychists who support the idea of conscious and the observer effect in quantum physics and there are entire journals dedicated to research on the subject with many peer reviewed papers all of which you and others would class as woo.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

well according to some peoples definition of woo this would include many prominant scientists like John Wheeler who established the ideas of Black Holes and worm holes in space time, and has worked with Feynman, Bohr and Albert Einstein. Roger Penrose who has worked with Hawkins and Stuart Hameroff, Francis Crick who is most famous for discovering the structure of DNA, Max Planck a physicist who originated quantum theory, David Bohm who contributed to quantum physics theory, Erwin Schrödinger pioneer in quantum physics and noble prize winner, Wolfgang Pauli who formulated the quantum theory, Pascual Jordan who was a pioneer in quantum mechanics and developed quantum field theory.

Others like Erich Neumann, Christof Koch, Giulio Tononi, Dean Radin, Thomas Nagal, Russell Targ, David Chalmers, and of course the infamous Robert Lanza. There are 100’s if not 1000’s of psychists who support the idea of conscious and the observer effect in quantum physics and there are entire journals dedicated to research on the subject with many peer reviewed papers all of which you and others would class as woo.

OK; I already defined what I meant by quantum woo - "using the concept of 'quantum weirdness' to make fantastical claims or speculations that are not remotely supported by the quantum formalism".

The list you've given clearly uses quite a different definition - and seems to me that a definition of quantum woo that includes the people who devised the theory is useless

 

[stevevw]

OK; I already defined what I meant by quantum woo - "using the concept of 'quantum weirdness' to make fantastical claims or speculations that are not remotely supported by the quantum formalism".

The list you've given clearly uses quite a different definition - and seems to me that a definition of quantum woo that includes the people who devised the theory is useless

So those on the list who support consciousness and the observer effect and the ideas that have been built upon this is not quantum woo. I thought that was what people called quantum woo as the ideas about the mind or consciousness being something that is seperate from the physical and therefore the ideas about a conscious state being able to existsoutside the body. This is what most of the above scientists support and despite giving a about scientists that devised the theory that is exactly what they support ie

Max Planck (1858-1947) was a Nobel Prize-winning German physicist and the father of quantum theory.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
“It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” –
Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961
“It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”

Erwin Schroedinger was a Nobel Prize-winning Austrian physicist who developed a number of fundamental results in the field of quantum theory
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
(Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)

David Bohm was an American scientist who has been described as one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century and who contributed unorthodox ideas to quantum theory.
Bohm’s version of quantum theory became more relevant to consciousness, when a later reformulation of his ideas led to the proposal that the wave aspect of a quanta was what he called ‘active information’ that could shape the state of a particle.

Ernst Pascual Jordan was a theoretical and mathematical physicist who made significant contributions to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.
"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So those on the list who support consciousness and the observer effect and the ideas that have been built upon this is not quantum woo.

I don't know anyone who doesn't 'support' consciousness or the observer effect. They're both acknowledged phenomena. From what you post, I'm not sure you understand what the observer effect is - just to clarify, it's the idea that in order to measure or observe something, some physical interaction is necessary, and a physical interaction will necessarily change the object being measured - whether it is just a random photon bouncing off it, or the object itself emitting a photon unprovoked. Consciousness is not directly relevant to the observer effect.

I thought that was what people called quantum woo...

I gave you the definition of quantum woo I was using. What other people call quantum woo when they're discussing it is their business.

As far as I can see, none of your examples fit the definition I gave.

 

[Kylie]

So those on the list who support consciousness and the observer effect and the ideas that have been built upon this is not quantum woo. I thought that was what people called quantum woo as the ideas about the mind or consciousness being something that is seperate from the physical and therefore the ideas about a conscious state being able to existsoutside the body. This is what most of the above scientists support and despite giving a about scientists that devised the theory that is exactly what they support ie

Max Planck (1858-1947) was a Nobel Prize-winning German physicist and the father of quantum theory.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
“It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” –
Eugene Wigner – (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961
“It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”

Erwin Schroedinger was a Nobel Prize-winning Austrian physicist who developed a number of fundamental results in the field of quantum theory
“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
(Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)

David Bohm was an American scientist who has been described as one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century and who contributed unorthodox ideas to quantum theory.
Bohm’s version of quantum theory became more relevant to consciousness, when a later reformulation of his ideas led to the proposal that the wave aspect of a quanta was what he called ‘active information’ that could shape the state of a particle.

Ernst Pascual Jordan was a theoretical and mathematical physicist who made significant contributions to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.
"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it."

Are any of those scientists neuroscientists? I don't think so. So anything they may say regarding the nature of consciousness should not be regarded as necessarily accurate.

You see, I like to get my science from scientists who are trained in the relevant field.

For example, Dr Steven Novella, who is a clinical neurologist and assistant professor at Yale University School of Medicine, and is thus very qualified to know how the brain works, who said:

"I am an unapologetic materialist. I think the mind is entirely explainable as a manifestation of the brain’s biological function.
...
The evidence for the brain as the sole cause of the mind is, in my opinion, overwhelming.
...
Another compelling reason to accept the materialist paradigm of neuroscience is that it has been and continues to be extremely successful. In science theories are judged not only by how well they fit the data, but by how useful they are as predictive models – and the materialist position that brain function is the mind has been fantastically successful.
...
Yet another reason I currently accept the materialist paradigm is that there is no independent evidence for anything else – for a consciousness separate the brain."​

Source

 

[stevevw]

Are any of those scientists neuroscientists? I don't think so. So anything they may say regarding the nature of consciousness should not be regarded as necessarily accurate.
You see, I like to get my science from scientists who are trained in the relevant field.

I think that is a sight logical fallacy as there have been many discoveries from people who either did not have a science degree in the first place or came from a different field than the one they made the discovery in. Gregor Mendal was a botanists and is famous for his discoveries in genetics for example. Sometimes different areas of science can be related and some scientists will go on to research other areas to gain knowledge.

The list does have some neuroscientists such as Francis Crick who was famous for his discoveries in DNA but changed careers to work in neuroscience. Christof Koch is an American neuroscientist best known for his work on the neural bases of consciousness. Giulio Tononi is a prominent neuroscientist. Stuart Hameroff is an anesthesiologist but has studied chemistry, physics, mathematics and philosophy of mind and has done a lot of research in neurology. He and Roger Penrose have put out a paper proposing the idea of quantum physics activity in the brain which may explain consciousness. I could probably find a heap of neurologists who support consciuosness as well.

I am not sure that even neurologists can know what consciousness is and though some have proposed ideas that it stems from the physical brain no one has supported this. The problem is physical explanations cannot account for what happens in some cases. That is why quantum physics has been proposed because it points to something happening that breaks down classical physics similar to how consciousness works in being more subjective rather than objective. You could use your same logic in saying a physicist does not understand the brain by saying a neurologists does not specialise or understand in quantum physics so how can they truely discount the possibility.

For example, Dr Steven Novella, who is a clinical neurologist and assistant professor at Yale University School of Medicine, and is thus very qualified to know how the brain works, who said:

"I am an unapologetic materialist. I think the mind is entirely explainable as a manifestation of the brain’s biological function.
...
The evidence for the brain as the sole cause of the mind is, in my opinion, overwhelming.
...
Another compelling reason to accept the materialist paradigm of neuroscience is that it has been and continues to be extremely successful. In science theories are judged not only by how well they fit the data, but by how useful they are as predictive models – and the materialist position that brain function is the mind has been fantastically successful.
...
Yet another reason I currently accept the materialist paradigm is that there is no independent evidence for anything else – for a consciousness separate the brain."​

Source

In my opinion pointing out that someone is a materialists as opposed to a non-materialists is supporting what I said earlier that sometimes what people think and support can come down to their beliefs. If someone is a materialist then they will only be looking for material explanations. The thing about those who believe in non-materialism will also support materialism becuase they understand they live in a material world. But they have the added advantage of also being open to non-material possibilities.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If someone is a materialist then they will only be looking for material explanations. The thing about those who believe in non-materialism will also support materialism becuase they understand they live in a material world. But they have the added advantage of also being open to non-material possibilities.

Just out of interest, what would a non-material explanation look like? How could it be tested? How would it help us better understand the phenomenon in question?

Use any example you like - I'd like to know just what you mean by 'a non-material explanation', and how it would be useful.

 

[stevevw]

Just out of interest, what would a non-material explanation look like? How could it be tested? How would it help us better understand the phenomenon in question?

Use any example you like - I'd like to know just what you mean by 'a non-material explanation', and how it would be useful.

I think consciousness is a good example. It cannot be held in your hands or tested and can only be observed indirectly, a bit like dark matter I guess. For non-materialists that indirect evidence can be for example NDE, extra sensory perception, telekinesis and telepathy. Materialists will interpret consciousness as being something physical in the brain and any indirect evidence as figments of imagination, hallucinations, coincident, etc.

As mentioned there are many prominent scientists who support the idea of consciousness and offer indirect and in some cases like Penrose and Hameroff direct evidence based on the effects of quantum physics. Yet the supports for the many worlds interpretation also stems from quantum physics and both offer no direct evidence for their existence or cannot be tested directly. Though the many worlds idea proposes real physical worlds no one has seen these so we can only spectulate.

 

[stevevw]

I don't know anyone who doesn't 'support' consciousness or the observer effect. They're both acknowledged phenomena. From what you post, I'm not sure you understand what the observer effect is - just to clarify, it's the idea that in order to measure or observe something, some physical interaction is necessary, and a physical interaction will necessarily change the object being measured - whether it is just a random photon bouncing off it, or the object itself emitting a photon unprovoked. Consciousness is not directly relevant to the observer effect.

I gave you the definition of quantum woo I was using. What other people call quantum woo when they're discussing it is their business.

As far as I can see, none of your examples fit the definition I gave.

Many of the scientists I posted who support consciousness do so in part becuase of the observer effect from quantum physics. They say that reality is an illusion and created by the oberver and therefore just as observing a photon can give it a position the conscious mind of the observer creates reality. This is the basis for how consciousness is non-material and something that exists outside our reality. John Wheelers delayed choice experiemnets have supported this and has been repreated in recent times.
Is life an ILLUSION? Researchers prove 'reality doesn't exist if you're not looking at it'
Is life an ILLUSION? Researchers prove 'reality doesn't exist if you're not looking at it'

As mentioned some of the most prominent scientists involved in the formulation of quantum physics associated consciousness to the effects of quantum physics.

Eugene Wigner – “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

Erwin Schroedinger “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”

David Bohm version of quantum theory became more relevant to consciousness,

Ernst Pascual Jordan "Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it."

 

[Kylie]

I think that is a sight logical fallacy as there have been many discoveries from people who either did not have a science degree in the first place or came from a different field than the one they made the discovery in. Gregor Mendal was a botanists and is famous for his discoveries in genetics for example. Sometimes different areas of science can be related and some scientists will go on to research other areas to gain knowledge.

Sure, but such people have done training in the field they are commenting on.

Your list includes Max Planck, who never studied neuroscience.

Eugene Wigner, who never studied neuroscience.

Erwin Schroedinger, who never studied neuroscience.

David Bohm, who came up with the holonomic brain theory, which was viewed as a fringe theory in the 1960s and is currently not taken seriously by any neuroscientist. We know vastly more about the physiology of memory than we did then (starting with the discovery of the phenomenon called Long Term Potentiation in 1973), and the holonomic brain theory doesn't fit with any of it. HERE is a response to the idea of the holonomic brain theory by someone with a Ph.D in neuroscience.

Ernst Pascual Jordan, who never studied neuroscience.

The list does have some neuroscientists such as Francis Crick who was famous for his discoveries in DNA but changed careers to work in neuroscience. Christof Koch is an American neuroscientist best known for his work on the neural bases of consciousness. Giulio Tononi is a prominent neuroscientist. Stuart Hameroff is an anesthesiologist but has studied chemistry, physics, mathematics and philosophy of mind and has done a lot of research in neurology. He and Roger Penrose have put out a paper proposing the idea of quantum physics activity in the brain which may explain consciousness. I could probably find a heap of neurologists who support consciuosness as well.

The list you posted had one person who made any contribution to neuroscience, and that contribution is considered outright bunk today.

The idea that quantum mechanics is involved with consciousness is doubtful at best, since quantum mechanics deals with things on a subatomic level and the brain's activity occurs on a cellular level. Even giving your position the benefit of the doubt, there's just not enough evidence to support the claim.

I am not sure that even neurologists can know what consciousness is and though some have proposed ideas that it stems from the physical brain no one has supported this. The problem is physical explanations cannot account for what happens in some cases. That is why quantum physics has been proposed because it points to something happening that breaks down classical physics similar to how consciousness works in being more subjective rather than objective. You could use your same logic in saying a physicist does not understand the brain by saying a neurologists does not specialise or understand in quantum physics so how can they truely discount the possibility.

\

You're wrong here, we have quite a bit of evidence to show that consciousness does arise from the physical brain. People have sustained severe brain injuries and had massive changes in their personality as a result.

In my opinion pointing out that someone is a materialists as opposed to a non-materialists is supporting what I said earlier that sometimes what people think and support can come down to their beliefs. If someone is a materialist then they will only be looking for material explanations. The thing about those who believe in non-materialism will also support materialism becuase they understand they live in a material world. But they have the added advantage of also being open to non-material possibilities.

I don't care if the answer is a materialist idea or not. I will follow the evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think consciousness is a good example. It cannot be held in your hands or tested and can only be observed indirectly, a bit like dark matter I guess.

It's qualitatively different from dark matter. The best scientific evidence - and there's a lot of it - tells us that consciousness is a certain type of brain activity, information processing activity. IOW the mind is what the brain does, and consciousness is a (very small) part of that.

You can't hold it in your hands because it's not stuff, it's what stuff (i.e. the brain) does, just as you can't hold digestion in your hands because it's not stuff, it's a process, an activity, it's what the gut does.

This tendency to ascribe independent existence to mental phenomena seems to be a hangover from the thinking of earlier times, expressed in the substance dualism of early modern philosophy; give mental processes a noun for a name, 'the mind', and people will treat them as if they were a thing that existed in its own right somehow, rather than a conceptual abstraction; and it doesn't bother them that the concept of an 'immaterial thing' is incoherent, presumably because of the familiarity with the similarly incoherent reification of conceptual abstractions at the heart of religious thought, e.g. spirit, soul, etc.

Notably, this doesn't happen with other bodily processes labelled with nouns, such as 'the digestion', or 'the metabolism', presumably because they don't represent the subjective essence of personal self and identity.

As mentioned there are many prominent scientists who support the idea of consciousness and offer indirect and in some cases like Penrose and Hameroff direct evidence based on the effects of quantum physics.

Just about everyone supports the idea of consciousness - the issue is the nature of consciousness, and the best people to answer that are the experts in the field, the neuroscientists - the vast majority of whom think it's a type of brain activity.

As for Penrose and Hammeroff, their hypothesis is speculative in the extreme, based on Penrose's flawed argument for noncomputability, and relying on flaky biological claims and unsupported ideas about unlikely macro-scale quantum effects. It's arguably on the wrong side of the boundary between wild speculation and quantum woo.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is life an ILLUSION? Researchers prove 'reality doesn't exist if you're not looking at it'
Is life an ILLUSION? Researchers prove 'reality doesn't exist if you're not looking at it'

Read the article - that's not what it says at all. Another example of a provocative headline intended to suck you in.

As mentioned some of the most prominent scientists involved in the formulation of quantum physics associated consciousness to the effects of quantum physics.

Eugene Wigner – “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

Erwin Schroedinger “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”

David Bohm version of quantum theory became more relevant to consciousness,

Ernst Pascual Jordan "Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it."

Oh great - a bunch of quotes from the dawn of quantum mechanics - we've moved on in both quantum mechanics and consciousness research in the last 80-odd years.

Wigner's belief that an observation in QM means that consciousness collapses the wavefunction has been abandoned by the mainstream as unworkable; in a modern understanding, substituting 'measurement' for 'consciousness', his quote boils down to saying that the results you get when you measure a quantum system depend on how you make the measurement - though in a non-classical way.

Schroedinger, though he was a great physicist, was apparently, at heart, a mystic theist... 'nuff said.

The Bohm quote refers to a version of his work on implicate and explicate order, a speculative and deep theory of universal patterns and relationships, including both physics and consciousness; not for the faint-hearted, and open to interpretation.

Jordan's quote is just describing an interpretation of QM - consciousness is not particularly relevant.

Rather than feed your confirmation bias by cherry-picking old quotes to support your preconceptions, why not try to discover a balanced picture of current mainstream opinion in the relevant fields to get a baseline against which to compare the variety of minority and fringe theories and opinions?

It'll take a bit more work, but it won't necessarily mean abandoning your preferred beliefs; you'd get some perspective about where they fit into modern thought on the subject, and I suspect you could find a more defensible set of ideas to support them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm a materialist in the sense that I view the only relevant things which exist are those which are capable of interacting with the world around us in a measurable way. Certainly, it is possible there are plenty of things which are not currently measurable but have enough of an impact that they could hypothetically be measured at a future date, but I am not going to assume said things exist, let alone have specific properties, until we can actually measure it.

I also view the inherently immeasurable as unimportant, due to the fact that this means said item doesn't interact with us or anything relevant to us whatsoever. It has no measurable impact on the universe, so such a thing would function indistinguishably from something which doesn't exist at all.