What Creates Consciousness?

[BCP1928]

Why not.

Because it's Platonic, so basically useless,

Not necessarily. It seems for the majority of people consciousness is a scientific issue and can be determined by science.

Not determined, investigated

Also if you look at some areas of research they are taking a science approach to consciousness.

Sure, why not?

If you look at ideas like ITT, Orch theory and the Global Workspace theory they are using science to determine consciousness in various ways. Some ideas are still trying to determine consciousness as a physical phenomena through math and information theory. Or in the case of ORCH theory looking at the brains microtubals which is said to initiate quantum decoherence.

OK

Others make good arguements about consciousness or mind being fundemental based on QM. Afterall some of the interpretations of QM argues that mind and consciousness are fundemental based on experimental data. So its not as if they don't have some rational basis for their arguements.

No, that speculation is still pretty much woo.

But which of these speculations lead to mind-body dualism?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Others make good arguements about consciousness or mind being fundemental based on QM. Afterall some of the interpretations of QM argues that mind and consciousness are fundemental based on experimental data. So its not as if they don't have some rational basis for their arguements.

Frankly those "consciousness required" interpretations of QM don't make any sense. If taken at face value, how did QM function for billions of years here on Earth before conscious beings existed? How does it function at the center of stars even today? No beings in there.

 

[stevevw]

Do you realize that interpretations of QM are just that -- interpretations. They are not evidence or facts or theories.

Do you realise that all interpretations of QM cannot be fact as they are all beyond science testing. So the next best we can do is by the most reasonable and argued inference based on the data. The links I provided are just that.

I skimmed through your whole response and I noticed you didn't include the part where I told you how angry I got at your inclusion of things I hadn't mentioned (and may have *never* mentioned anywhere).

Yes I was thinking about whether I should respond as I didn't want to rock that boat. But it was also late and was tired so I thought I would leave it at that if you noticed that there were other replies to address as well.

I was not intentionally trying to misrepresent or upset you. I was responding how I seen things fundementally. You said I had finally mentioned an actual scientific approach "the study of behaviors of conscious beings". My point that I kept repeating and which you seemed to be ignoring was that the study of behaviour according to the science method doesn't tell us anything about subjective conscious experience no matter how much info we have.

I was trying to explain the bigger fundemental issue at hand. Which is that because you keep referring to the science of behaviour you are limiting possibilities to the science of behaviour. The fundemental issue is epistemology, should the science of behaviour be the only measure of subjective conscious experience. You seem to think so in that you dismissed what I was saying and claimed that only certain evidence is allowed which is the science of behaviour.

Put it this way. Would you accept that subjective experiences of consciousness (testimony) as evidence of consciousness and of a deeper knowledge about reality.

We'll (as Reagan said) here you go again. You are not arguing with my posts but with what you perceive to be my position. I did not make this claim here, so knock it off or this conversation is going to end abruptly.

Like I said this is not my intention. I cannot help the way I see things. Perhaps you are underestimating my knowledge or insights on this. Maybe I am wrong but I cannot help but understand the issue the way I do.

Like I said above its an epistemic issue about how we should know about consciousness. As far as I know from my discussions with you that you don't believe in any consciousness beyond brain. Is that right.

Do you even know where you are (check the header of the page)? This is the science section, sir. It is the *only* thing that is on topic. If you can't stay on topic this *will* end abruptly.

Thats silly. I have lost count of how science creeps into Christian threads and visa versa. But evenso mentioning possibilities beyond science testing or discussing philosophy within science is quite common especially when it comes to consciousness.

Its not necessarily unscientific to ask the question whether our current paradigm of material science can answer the question of science in the first place. It may be that the current methods of science are wrong but not necessarily supernatural.

More evidence that you don't even understand the conversation you are in.

Why, is that according to the epistemics of your conversation, your criteria as to what creates consciousness. The original post asks 'what creates consciousness'. Surely considering the vast array of ideas even within science that posit an expanded paradigm of understanding should be allowed and not a strict adherence to a specific paradigm that is itself under question.

Low or hard to detect brain activity does not demonstrate that conscious or mind is not connected to brain activity. Show consciousness or mind in something without a brain or one that is dead and stays dead.

The idea of the brain creating consciousness is based on complex interactions of neurons ie a certain level of brain activity is needed. That a compromised or flatlined or unconscious brain cannot possibly achieve.

The point is there should be no such conscious activity full stop with these brains. That activity happens at such a higher order in a compromised or dead brain should be impossible if it takes a certain level of complex brain activity which needs to functioning in the first place. The activity in NDE is not the evidence. Its the fact that this sort of activity could happen and the realism of the experiences told later which cannot be explained. Its the accumulation of the evidence from a number of lines.

Would you have preferred "no one has demonstrated that it is supernatural"?

I think you mean "no one has demonstrated that it is supernatural" according to the limited measurement of science. So only certain things count like brain activity. The testimony of an experiencer, the more than coincident events and knowledge are all dismissed as imaginations, coincidences, trickery and fraud. So this type of evdience doesn't have a chance under methodological naturalism.

M/String theory is a failed attempt to merge quantum gravity with all other forces. It is questionable if it is or ever was actually science. There is no evidence for extra dimensions. (Many worlds is not an extra dimensions interpretation of QM either.)
The extra dimensions people made claims, they were tested, they failed.

So why do you think these ideas are being proposed in the first place. Is there something in the data that is causing scientists to venture down this path.

Do you think that whatever the hypothesis is going to be it must involve extra dimensions or counter intuitive ideas that defy current scientific testing.

I'm not going to dig back and demonstrate what you actually wrote, but I stand by my position. "Imagination" doesn't alter the issue in the slightest about the nature of consciousness or mind. Like most of the things in this topic I don't know how you would study imagination scientifically, but then again, I am not in the relevant fields, so I can not assess methods I am not even aware of.

I was speaking on a more fundemental and philosophical level. Imagination like other subjective states steps outside as you say the scientific testing as its not about quantities. But these mind states are real and may be ways of understanding a deeper reality that science has not yet been able to even understand paradigmatically.

Not quite. I am a scientist and we use nature to explain things in nature. People are part of nature and there is a vast scientific enterprise studying people, including their behaviors, scientifically. I don't know what the limits or extent of those studies because (as I just stated) IT IS NOT MY FIELD, but I would be foolish to assume that they don't know what they are doing or how to study stuff and just accept a supernaturalist interpretation in a world with no physical mechanisms for such action.

Its more to do with epistemics. Claiming that there is only one way to understand reality. The study of behaviour is based on reducing things to the physical causes even subjective experiences. Brain chemical imbalances, genetics, psychological disorders which are usually put down to brain issues.

But it doesn't have to be about the supernatural verses the natural. There may be a third way where its neither. The point is that mainstream science can be dogmatic and claim epistemically that the science method, or studying reductive physical behaviour is the only way to know and then the further ontological claim that by knowing we also know what reality is. In some ways reductive science is inherently materialistic.

Mind, consiciousness, imagination, dreams, memories, etc., are all real brain states, etc. It is well known that brain states are often bad representations of the *external* world, but that doesn't mean that they don't actually exist in real brains as mental states.

It also doesn't mean that they may be real representations of the world and reality. Thats the point that I think when it comes down to it scientific materialism or physicalism claims that these brain states are not just often bad representations but always unreliable representations especially if they contradict current scientific consensus.

Of course, "beyond physical" things aren't demonstrated, yet.

Aren't demoinstrated yet according to the science method. Actually they may already be demonstrated but are rejected. It may be that some of the evidence for consciousness beyond brain thats been rejected may actually be evidence for consciousness beyond brain but science has no way of measuring it.

Like with Mary's experience of red. The science method cannot explain this and yet its a real phenomena that reveals reality. The science method will conclude this is just neurons and photons interacting. But that doesn't explain the experience of red.

Gee that really sounds like an emergent property of complex system integrated together. Nothing supernatural in that description.

Yeah like I said not all these ideas are appealing to the supernatural. But what IIT is doing is appealing to Information as fundemental. Like others appeal to math being fundemental. What the Information paradigm does though is then point to Mind being fundemental because information is Mind.

What Mind then points to is consciousness. In fact ideas like Panpsychism are the basis for Information theories on consciousness because technically even electrons can be attributed with a basic IIT and consciousness. Its the point that consciousness prevades the universe which needs to be incorporated into mainstream science which will shift things pardigmatically.

I was commenting on the ideas as you had presented them, not the unknown researchers.

OK well then you need to know their ideas before you can relegate them as Woo.

and I'm an academic descendant of Heisenberg, so what.

True and thats why ad hominem are fallacies. But I took it as when you said "who" are these scientists I assumed you meant their reputation and work. Stapp was not just a collaborator of Heisenberg but also a pioneer of QM as it relates to consciousness. So I was mentioning him as being at the level of Heisenberg himself as a scientist. He is at least well acknowledged as one of the l;eading scientists in his field.

But you are right reputation alone is not enough and thats why I linked his work and especially the particular claim in the quote I linked in regards to the interpretations of QM and consciousness being the most direct measure of what is happening and not what is happening in soime measuring device.

This is just a disagreement with (dislike of) one interpretation of QM (Copenhagen). It's just philosophical wonderings. (And you know what I think of those.)

Do you think that these interpretations can get by without philosophical considerations. Considering that they can be so counter intuitive.

I had no idea you were referring to John Wheeler. From the context I wouldn't have assumed you were invoking a renowned expert on General Relativity. Now that I see what Wheeler was actually proposing, this is again an INTERPRETATION OF QM. None of such things have demonstrated they are "true". (QM is weird and the ideas to understand it are often weird.)

But its an interpretation based on scientific testing in QM the Delayed Choice and the Erasure experiments which show that measurement and observation can change the outcomes of quantum states even in the past. Which as other experiments like Wigners Friend point to the conscious observer, Mind and Knowlerdge being fundemental.

 

[stevevw]

Because it's Platonic, so basically useless,

The Mind-Body Dualism is not just limited to Plato. Even Galilao recognised this reality when he seperated science with math from the non physical aspect of consciousness or the soul. Beforethis even scientists believed there was this non physical aspect to reality such as 'Life Force' or the essense of more transcedental realities like colors, smells and experiences.

So from the beginning science accepted that it could only measure a certain aspect of reality but there was this unknown aspect that was not physical yet real. It was only as science succeeded and became more dominant that it then became for of a all encompassing idea that explained all reality and made the non physical aspects unreal and therefore unreliable.

But now it seems after many decades of discoveries this unknown and non physical aspect is coming back in various forms from physics, psychology to evolution. It seems the accumulation of findings is naturally pointing to a non physical basis for reality. So in some ways science has gone full circle.

Not determined, investigated

OK investigated. But in some ways its being determined. Its just some or maybe the establishment of consensus at present is not willing to count it because its contradictory to the existing paradigm in thinking that only empiricle evidence counts.

No, that speculation is still pretty much woo.

No its not because its based on good reasoned and argued inferences just like other areas of science. We cannot go back and check say the Big Bang. But we can make reasoned arguements as to why it happened that way based on the data.

Some of the interpretations of QM that infers consciousness or the observer influencing fundemental reality are based on scientific experiments like the Double Split, Delayed Choice and Wigners Friend and many variations that confirm measurement and observers influence things. Just as some have inferred the Many Worlds interpretation based on the same experiements.

It is from this that scientists like Wheeler, Wigner, von Neumann even Heisenberg were proposing that conscious observers create reality. Its what Stapp argued that the results of QM should not be reduced to the measuring device but directly to the Mind looking through the measuring device.

That the measureing device is itself part of the quantum world and the only direct access was through direct conscious observations. Therefore making consciousness fundemental. Its a well reasoned and logical conclusion and also one that seems to fit well with observations. That is why it is becoming a popular expansion of understanding reality.

But which of these speculations lead to mind-body dualism?

Some do some don't. Either way they lead to Mind and consciousness being a real force in understanding reality. Some of the ideas propose that reality contains a conscious aspect but also a physical aspect.

Some make consciousness fundemental and the physical a sort of illusions or interface created by mind to navigate the physical world. Some make everything a simulation and others make everything physical but with a new unknown physical force which is consciousness.

The point is all should be considered.

 

[BCP1928]

The Mind-Body Dualism is not just limited to Plato. Even Galilao recognised this reality when he seperated science with math from the non physical aspect of consciousness or the soul. Beforethis even scientists believed there was this non physical aspect to reality such as 'Life Force' or the essense of more transcedental realities like colors, smells and experiences.

So from the beginning science accepted that it could only measure a certain aspect of reality but there was this unknown aspect that was not physical yet real. It was only as science succeeded and became more dominant that it then became for of a all encompassing idea that explained all reality and made the non physical aspects unreal and therefore unreliable.

But now it seems after many decades of discoveries this unknown and non physical aspect is coming back in various forms from physics, psychology to evolution. It seems the accumulation of findings is naturally pointing to a non physical basis for reality. So in some ways science has gone full circle.

OK investigated. But in some ways its being determined. Its just some or maybe the establishment of consensus at present is not willing to count it because its contradictory to the existing paradigm in thinking that only empiricle evidence counts.

No its not because its based on good reasoned and argued inferences just like other areas of science. We cannot go back and check say the Big Bang. But we can make reasoned arguements as to why it happened that way based on the data.

Some of the interpretations of QM that infers consciousness or the observer influencing fundemental reality are based on scientific experiments like the Double Split, Delayed Choice and Wigners Friend and many variations that confirm measurement and observers influence things. Just as some have inferred the Many Worlds interpretation based on the same experiements.

It is from this that scientists like Wheeler, Wigner, von Neumann even Heisenberg were proposing that conscious observers create reality. Its what Stapp argued that the results of QM should not be reduced to the measuring device but directly to the Mind looking through the measuring device.

That the measureing device is itself part of the quantum world and the only direct access was through direct conscious observations. Therefore making consciousness fundemental. Its a well reasoned and logical conclusion and also one that seems to fit well with observations. That is why it is becoming a popular expansion of understanding reality.

Some do some don't. Either way they lead to Mind and consciousness being a real force in understanding reality. Some of the ideas propose that reality contains a conscious aspect but also a physical aspect.

Some make consciousness fundemental and the physical a sort of illusions or interface created by mind to navigate the physical world. Some make everything a simulation and others make everything physical but with a new unknown physical force which is consciousness.

The point is all should be considered.

And, indeed, they are all being considered. Is this just another of your threads with no purpose but to praise science?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes I was thinking about whether I should respond as I didn't want to rock that boat. But it was also late and was tired so I thought I would leave it at that if you noticed that there were other replies to address as well.

I was not intentionally trying to misrepresent or upset you. I was responding how I seen things fundementally. You said I had finally mentioned an actual scientific approach "the study of behaviors of conscious beings". My point that I kept repeating and which you seemed to be ignoring was that the study of behaviour according to the science method doesn't tell us anything about subjective conscious experience no matter how much info we have.

I was trying to explain the bigger fundemental issue at hand. Which is that because you keep referring to the science of behaviour you are limiting possibilities to the science of behaviour. The fundemental issue is epistemology, should the science of behaviour be the only measure of subjective conscious experience. You seem to think so in that you dismissed what I was saying and claimed that only certain evidence is allowed which is the science of behaviour.

Put it this way. Would you accept that subjective experiences of consciousness (testimony) as evidence of consciousness and of a deeper knowledge about reality.


Like I said this is not my intention. I cannot help the way I see things. Perhaps you are underestimating my knowledge or insights on this. Maybe I am wrong but I cannot help but understand the issue the way I do.

Like I said above its an epistemic issue about how we should know about consciousness. As far as I know from my discussions with you that you don't believe in any consciousness beyond brain. Is that right.

Thats silly. I have lost count of how science creeps into Christian threads and visa versa. But evenso mentioning possibilities beyond science testing or discussing philosophy within science is quite common especially when it comes to consciousness.

Its not necessarily unscientific to ask the question whether our current paradigm of material science can answer the question of science in the first place. It may be that the current methods of science are wrong but not necessarily supernatural.

Why, is that according to the epistemics of your conversation, your criteria as to what creates consciousness. The original post asks 'what creates consciousness'. Surely considering the vast array of ideas even within science that posit an expanded paradigm of understanding should be allowed and not a strict adherence to a specific paradigm that is itself under question.

This whole section was in response to places where I commented on your "responding" to things I hadn't written in this thread. I don't think I should need to say that if you just stick to replying to the claims and statements I have made in *this* conversation in the context of *this* thread, there will be no problems. I don't need to comment further.

 

[stevevw]

This whole section was in response to places where I commented on your "responding" to things I hadn't written in this thread. I don't think I should need to say that if you just stick to replying to the claims and statements I have made in *this* conversation in the context of *this* thread, there will be no problems. I don't need to comment further.

OK fair ernough but it still doesn't resolve the fundemental issue of ;what creates consciousness'. Whether its something beyond brain or not.

 

[stevevw]

And, indeed, they are all being considered. Is this just another of your threads with no purpose but to praise science?

No its exactly what I have said and I have provided the support for which no one has even addressed but rather are engaging in all sorts of logical fallacies.

But then I am wondering what you mean by " just another of your threads with no purpose but to praise science". If I am praising science then why the objections to woo and supernaturalism. Ddin't you mean the opposite, that I have come to criticise science or priase God lol.

Thats usually the objection which is also a fallacy. Another way of not addressing the content and evidence, of not rebutting the content, understanding the content and making a counter arguement to it.

At least when that happens we can get closer to the truth. But just making all these side issues on motives, reputations, sources, misrepresentations goes nowhere.

 

[FireDragon76]

For this Christian worldview, it's biblical. A machine can not be programmed to comprehend all human emotions thoughts and desire.

That sounds like an overly pessimistic statement, one not really in keeping with the capabilities of AI.

I'm not sure a machine will be able to feel pain no matter how many sensors it has because we have a biological brain which itself has powerful computing power. We have neuroplasticity which rewires our brain where whereas a machine at the basic level is ones and zeros and pure logic.

What does feeling pain have to do with being conscious? Feeling pain is a survival adaptation in some biological systems.

 

[Laodicean60]

That sounds like an overly pessimistic statement, one not really in keeping with the capabilities of AI.



What does feeling pain have to do with being conscious? Feeling pain is a survival adaptation in some biological systems.

I may be but I'll keep up with AI robots to see and believe that emotions are an integral part of our conciseness. I'll Take a peak at Asia every now and then and see the latest tech.

 

[Doveaman]

Renowned researchers David Chalmers and Anil Seth join Brian Greene to explore how far science and philosophy have gone toward explaining the greatest of all mysteries, consciousness

As a Christian who believes in the bible as the inspired word of God who created consciousness, I look to the word of God, rather than to men, for an explanation of consciousness.

We are told in Gen 2:7, And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground (his body), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (his spirit); and man became a living being (his consciousness).

It is the body of man united with the spirit of man that gives rise to human consciousness/life.

1 Cor 2:11, For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?

It is the spirit in man that inspires man with the power of knowledge.

Job 32:8, There is a spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.

There is a spirit in man that inspires man with the power of understanding.

In other words, there is a spirit in man that inspires man with the power of knowledge and understanding, hence consciousness.

Jam 2:26, The body without the spirit is dead.

The body of man without the spirit in man is dead/unconscious, because it is the spirit in man united with the body of man that gives rise to human consciousness/life.

Gen 2:7, And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground (his body), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (his spirit); and man became a living being (his consciousness).

and whether artificially intelligent systems may one day possess it.

Artificially intelligent systems may one day possess consciousness only if they can be programmed to possess a spirit. Without a spirit, any semblance of consciousness would simply be artificial consciousness and not real consciousness.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, Dove!

Welcome back!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you realise that all interpretations of QM cannot be fact as they are all beyond science testing. So the next best we can do is by the most reasonable and argued inference based on the data. The links I provided are just that.

Yes, that's what I was trying to communicate to you. Interpretations of QM are just interpretations. They don't tell us anything about the physical state with certainty. Does "observing" a quantum system fix the state? Do all possible quantum states exist with some amplitude and we just perceive we are in a specific one? Etc. Who knows? QM is irrelevant to the topic though.

[BIG SNIP, non QM]

True and thats why ad hominem are fallacies. But I took it as when you said "who" are these scientists I assumed you meant their reputation and work.

I didn't dismiss anyone by their reputation or background except for the biochemist (or whatever he was) you put up as your first(?) and only(?) link. You apparently moved on because there was no reason given why I should be interested in some biologist who cited his book on yoga.

Stapp was not just a collaborator of Heisenberg but also a pioneer of QM as it relates to consciousness. So I was mentioning him as being at the level of Heisenberg himself as a scientist. He is at least well acknowledged as one of the l;eading scientists in his field.

But you are right reputation alone is not enough and thats why I linked his work and especially the particular claim in the quote I linked in regards to the interpretations of QM and consciousness being the most direct measure of what is happening and not what is happening in soime measuring device.

"Measurement" and "collapse of the wavefunction" doesn't require conscious choice. If you take any neutrino propagating through space in a mixed and evolving flavor state (see neutrino oscillations) that encounters a passive detector that scatters differently for different flavor of neutrino, that particle in the detector (nucleus, nucleon, electron, or whatever) is "observer" that "collapses the wavefunction" and detects with differentiation between flavors of neutrino. It is not "conscious" because humans put a bunch of the detector material in the same place and observed the reaction as the same "observation" would have taken place in deep space or inside a passing planet if the same detector material was present. It is the same for all "quantum observations."

Do you think that these interpretations can get by without philosophical considerations. Considering that they can be so counter intuitive.

And frankly that's why they aren't very scientific, but instead philosophical.

But its an interpretation based on scientific testing in QM the Delayed Choice and the Erasure experiments which show that measurement and observation can change the outcomes of quantum states even in the past. Which as other experiments like Wigners Friend point to the conscious observer, Mind and Knowlerdge being fundemental.

I will certainly agree that that QM is weird, but I think this claim is writing checks it can't cash.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, that's what I was trying to communicate to you. Interpretations of QM are just interpretations.

Your not seeing the bigger picture. Interpretations are not just interpretations. Its the type of interpretations, all of them that is the point. They appeal to physics (if you can all it that) as what else is there to find as particles or fields. But they appeal to something beyond the current paradigm of science. So whatever the answer is going to be there needs to be a big change in thinking about what reality is.

But most of all QM brings the observer, conscious observations back into science. It cannot be helped. Either with the traditional interpretations where there may be another you and me or many in other paraelle universes or observers and consciousness has an effect on reality. But either way we are grapelling with the subject, the observer and reality in counter intuitive ways that step outside the current paradigm of science.

They don't tell us anything about the physical state with certainty.

Yes they do, at the very bottom its indeterministic and measurement has a lot to do with creating the reality we see. That then naturally leads to the observer making the measurements. What we see with our minds and not through some measuring device which becomes part of what we are trying to measure.

Does "observing" a quantum system fix the state? Do all possible quantum states exist with some amplitude and we just perceive we are in a specific one? Etc. Who knows? QM is irrelevant to the topic though.

The two options you give are both counter intuitive to whatever the answer may be. They propose something that would be hard to verify because they are beyond what science can do.

So we are left with the interpretations and then trying to support whichever through inference and the best reasoning. It seems the conscious observer interpretation is providing the most fruitful way forward. Thats unless we can build a collider as big as the earth. Maybe one day.

I didn't dismiss anyone by their reputation or background except for the biochemist (or whatever he was) you put up as your first(?) and only(?) link. You apparently moved on because there was no reason given why I should be interested in some biologist who cited his book on yoga.

Like I said I was only looking for the content and much of that content was supported by the peer reviewed articles. Perhaps you should look at that content first and then give reasons why its invalid than try to fixate on the person.

In just checking the first link I used was actually from Cambridge Press from Henry Stapp one of the world greatest physicist on quantum consciousness. A coolege of Werner Heisenberg. The second article was from Futurism and though a media outlet was merely explaining Wheelers Participatory Universe Principle which is formulated based on QM and reasoned arguements for conscious observers creating reality at the quantum level.

The 3rd one was from the Converstion and once again explaining consciousness and quoting the scientists and the 4th was from Science Daily and certainly not a religious source. So if we count all the other articles I linked perhaps the one you are fixated on is just one of many. But you choose that one and I wonder why.
.

"Measurement" and "collapse of the wavefunction" doesn't require conscious choice. If you take any neutrino propagating through space in a mixed and evolving flavor state (see neutrino oscillations) that encounters a passive detector that scatters differently for different flavor of neutrino, that particle in the detector (nucleus, nucleon, electron, or whatever) is "observer" that "collapses the wavefunction" and detects with differentiation between flavors of neutrino. It is not "conscious" because humans put a bunch of the detector material in the same place and observed the reaction as the same "observation" would have taken place in deep space or inside a passing planet if the same detector material was present. It is the same for all "quantum observations."

The point is whatever the detector it is the conscious observation that is most directly telling us what is going on. We may see the detectors as they are because of our conscious observation to begin with. We don't see the quantum interactions directly.

So the instrument is merely a device that allows us to measure and see those quantum effects directly. We cut through the physical barriers directly to the quantum world to see what happens at the point where virtually nothing is becoming something. There have been several experiments that have confirmed this like Wheelers delayed Choice or Wigners Friend which suggest reality, objective reality is actually subjective, two different observers can have two different outcomes at the same time.

And frankly that's why they aren't very scientific, but instead philosophical.

You seem to think science can do without philosophy. The very practice of stepping back and choosing to measure certain aspects over others is itself philosophical. There are many papers on discussing the interpretations of QM and to be honest thats all we have at present. We have to venture down this road because it demands it. There is no other options as we have reached the limit of science.

I will certainly agree that that QM is weird, but I think this claim is writing checks it can't cash.

To a degree. BUt I think no matter who it is even as with Roger Penrose a well respected and very scientific man is exploring consciousness beyond brain as a possibility. Because that is where the evidence is pointing.

 

[BCP1928]

No its exactly what I have said and I have provided the support for which no one has even addressed but rather are engaging in all sorts of logical fallacies.

But then I am wondering what you mean by " just another of your threads with no purpose but to praise science". If I am praising science then why the objections to woo and supernaturalism. Ddin't you mean the opposite, that I have come to criticise science or priase God lol.

Thats usually the objection which is also a fallacy. Another way of not addressing the content and evidence, of not rebutting the content, understanding the content and making a counter arguement to it.

At least when that happens we can get closer to the truth. But just making all these side issues on motives, reputations, sources, misrepresentations goes nowhere.

. You listed some matters which you suggested science ought to consider. Science is indeed considering them. Hooray for science.

 

[Laodicean60]

I can't wait for quantum teleportation we'll be one step closer to the transporter room on the starship Enterprise and hopefully AI will revolutionize the science.

 

[stevevw]

. You listed some matters which you suggested science ought to consider. Science is indeed considering them. Hooray for science.

Actually mainstream science isn't. They regard consciousness beyond brain or other possible fundemental realities like Mind or Information pseudoscience.

 

[BCP1928]

Actually mainstream science isn't. They regard consciousness beyond brain or other possible fundemental realities like Mind or Information pseudoscience.

No, they regard claims made about such things as unevidenced and basically unfalsifiable and so of no particular interest to science. Such of them as are Christians realize that mind-body dualism is not a prerequisite for the possession of an immortal soul so even they can ignore it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your not seeing the bigger picture. Interpretations are not just interpretations. Its the type of interpretations, all of them that is the point. They appeal to physics (if you can all it that) as what else is there to find as particles or fields. But they appeal to something beyond the current paradigm of science. So whatever the answer is going to be there needs to be a big change in thinking about what reality is.

But most of all QM brings the observer, conscious observations back into science. It cannot be helped.

Sure it can. As I stated later in my post, "observers" by no means need to be conscious.

Either with the traditional interpretations where there may be another you and me or many in other paraelle universes or observers and consciousness has an effect on reality. But either way we are grapelling with the subject, the observer and reality in counter intuitive ways that step outside the current paradigm of science.

Which makes it clear that these claims of "consicousness is involved" are not supported. Just one possible interpretation.

Yes they do, at the very bottom its indeterministic and measurement has a lot to do with creating the reality we see. That then naturally leads to the observer making the measurements. What we see with our minds and not through some measuring device which becomes part of what we are trying to measure.

That wasn't about "indeterminancy" or measurement. It was about what the wavefunction means.

The two options you give are both counter intuitive to whatever the answer may be. They propose something that would be hard to verify because they are beyond what science can do.

and that's why we don't know which interpretation is right or if any of them are.

So we are left with the interpretations and then trying to support whichever through inference and the best reasoning. It seems the conscious observer interpretation is providing the most fruitful way forward. Thats unless we can build a collider as big as the earth. Maybe one day.

Alternatively, we could just not care about what QM "means". Bigger colliders aren't going to help.

Like I said I was only looking for the content and much of that content was supported by the peer reviewed articles. Perhaps you should look at that content first and then give reasons why its invalid than try to fixate on the person.

In just checking the first link I used was actually from Cambridge Press from Henry Stapp one of the world greatest physicist on quantum consciousness. A coolege of Werner Heisenberg. The second article was from Futurism and though a media outlet was merely explaining Wheelers Participatory Universe Principle which is formulated based on QM and reasoned arguements for conscious observers creating reality at the quantum level.

I have no idea what coolege is, you've mangled it so bad.

The 3rd one was from the Converstion and once again explaining consciousness and quoting the scientists and the 4th was from Science Daily and certainly not a religious source. So if we count all the other articles I linked perhaps the one you are fixated on is just one of many. But you choose that one and I wonder why.
.

The point is whatever the detector it is the conscious observation that is most directly telling us what is going on. We may see the detectors as they are because of our conscious observation to begin with. We don't see the quantum interactions directly.

You are confusing observation with the process of humans finding out things. Observations happen all the time without any humans or other beings around.

So the instrument is merely a device that allows us to measure and see those quantum effects directly. We cut through the physical barriers directly to the quantum world to see what happens at the point where virtually nothing is becoming something. There have been several experiments that have confirmed this like Wheelers delayed Choice or Wigners Friend which suggest reality, objective reality is actually subjective, two different observers can have two different outcomes at the same time.

None of these require consciousness.

You seem to think science can do without philosophy.

It's better that way. I've gone decades without using philosophy in my science.

The very practice of stepping back and choosing to measure certain aspects over others is itself philosophical. There are many papers on discussing the interpretations of QM and to be honest thats all we have at present. We have to venture down this road because it demands it. There is no other options as we have reached the limit of science.

To a degree. BUt I think no matter who it is even as with Roger Penrose a well respected and very scientific man is exploring consciousness beyond brain as a possibility. Because that is where the evidence is pointing.

 

[BCP1928]

It's better that way. I've gone decades without using philosophy in my science.

Actually, you do. You must rely on it constantly to be so adept at baffling people like Steve who are trying to impugn it. (I mean that seriously)