|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: The implications of quantum physics. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
parasomnium writes: think the term should be applied very loosely, in that a collision between two particles can be called an 'observation' in a quantum-mechanical sense, without the involvement of humans - or any other conscious beings for that matter.randman writes: Well, I agree to a degree, and think some experiments have shown the mere threat of observation causes the collapse. This could be a whole thread on it's own, and sometimes I think the information sharing Bit concept could be right, and other times not. There does seem to have to be somewhere, even in the future or background, an observer or potential observer, but I agree that there does not have to be a measurement by a conscious observer in the present to cause the particle to take on discrete and specific form, or at least I think that's right. I just recently re-read Chap 7 in Brain Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos". If I understand this discussion correctly, (very strong chance I don't), then I think Greene would agree with Randman. It seems that interference can occur not only through space but across time as well. As Greene says, "the future helps shape the story you tell of the past". It also occurs to me that when Parasomium talks about a collision between particles being an observation I wonder how it is she can know that when she couldn't have observed it. We can only see the results when at some point there was consciousness involved. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thanks for your thoughts Mitchell. I find your line of inquiry fascinating and would like to get your comments on Dr. Hameroff's work. I paste his web site and follow that with his response in an interview from that site.
Welcome | Stuart Hameroff, MD Stuart Hameroff M.D. is Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona in Tucson. He spends most days providing anesthesia for patients in the surgical operating rooms at University of Arizona Medical Center. Dr. Hameroff:"As I said in the credit clip at the end of "Bleep", every day as I give the drugs that put my patients off to sleep I wonder where it is they go. Or more importantly, why are they 'here' in the first place? Why are they-why are WE-conscious? Consciousness remains a profound mystery. It touches not only science and medicine, but the nature of reality, our place in the universe. There can be no sense of spirituality or serenity without consciousness occurs". Dr. Hameroff attempts to bridge the gap between medical science and the essence of existence, of being subtly connected to what he calls the "Funda-Mental" level of the universe. He says:"Consciousness is far more than the brain acting like a computer. Evidence from various directions suggests non-local interactions-spooky action-at-a-distance as Einstein called it-among people, and a connection to the most basic level of reality. The best way to understand this is through quantum physics which describes how the universe actually is, at least at small scales. The problem is 'how small is small?' Where is the boundary, the edge between the quantum world and our everyday world? In the quantum world there are deep interconnections and multitudes of possibilities. Time doesn't exist. In some sense our unconscious dream world is a lot like the quantum world. In fact, dreams may actually occur in the quantum world. Its not a different dimension, just the other side of our everyday reality. But our everyday reality is different. Consciousness has something to do with that. Some say the conscious observer chooses our reality. That may be true but it doesn't explain what the conscious observer actually is." Dr. Hameroff is known for his collaboration with the eminent British physicist Sir Roger Penrose whose ideas and books "The emperor's new mind", "Shadows of the mind" and "The road to reality" have shaken up science. Hameroff:"Penrose suggested that Plato's world of pure forms, mathematical truth, ethical and aesthetic values actually exist in the quantum world, in the most basic level of the universe. That level is described through string theory, quantum gravity and so forth but is far, far too tiny to be measured. It is what makes up empty space, the fabric of nothingness. It's tiny, but vast; wherever we go, there it is! We can't see it, but according to Roger, we can feel it. He suggested that conscious thought connects to, and is influenced by, these Platonic values. To me, that sounds like 'following the way of the Tao', 'Divine Guidance' or 'surrendering to your Higher Power'. Roger avoids such comparisons but I think it's fair to speculate along those lines. Roger didn't have a good biological way of making the connection between the brain and the 'funda-mental' level, but I had been working on the idea of small scale computation in structures inside neurons called microtubules which seemed perfect for the job. He and I teamed up 11 years ago and put forth a theory of consciousness based on this connection. It's been rather controversial but still going strong. Time and experiments will tell, but I am fairly certain something like that must be going on. The basic idea is that consciousness is, in itself, a transition between the quantum and everyday classical worlds. So it isn't so much that the conscious observer causes a 'collapse of the wave function', as it's called. Rather, consciousness IS a collapse-a particular type of self-collapse. Consciousness is a process on the edge between the quantum world and our everyday world. I get this funny image in my head of someone-me, I guess, but anyone -surfing on the edge, like a wave breaking between the two realms." Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Thanks for the reply. It is a lot to digest.
mitchellmckain writes: I believe that consciousness is a universal property of the life process. It is, however, quantitative as all life is quantitative, so although all life has consciousness, that does not mean that all forms of life are equally conscious. There are measurable differences of complexity, sensitivity, freedom, and time scale. Human consciousness can develop these measures to such a high degree because the human lifeform is not only biological. The human brain provides a place for such a free interaction of sensory and motor information that it gives birth to a complex of life processes that operate on a much faster time scale as well as higher sensitivity and freedom. This lifeform which lives in the human brain is none other than what is commonly known as the human mind. So I cannot agree with Hameroff more when he says that consciousness is more than the brain acting like a computer. Indeed, I see no similarity between the human mind and the operation of a computer at all. When you say that consciousness is a universal property of the life process I'm wondering what you would include in the term life process. Does an ant have consciousness; does an amoeba or a rose? Do you see the human mind and human consciousness as being synonymous? Would you say that the brain acts like a computer with the mind providing input to the brain?
mitchellmckain writes: Instead this suggests to me that that the quantitative energies bound to the physical form of the universe interact (in accordance with the limitations imposed by the uncertainty principle) with energy from outside the space-time physcical law structure of the universe. I envision a sea of non-quantitative energy (with no space or time measures), within which forms of energy can exist independent of one another and defined and "ruled" only by their own internal structure. This is what I call the spiritual world/realm/reality. Gerald Shroeder suggests, in his book "The Hidden Face of God",that each particle in QM is in reality a little bit of thought or information. Would you agree with him? http://www.geraldschroeder.com/ When you talk about a sea of non-quantitative energy would you consider this to function along the line of the Higgs field?
mitchellmckain writes: Yet I would hesitate to completely attibute human dreams to the experience of this spiritual reality. I think it is very similar but suspect, at most, something more like a sympathetic correspondence rather a direct experience of the spiritual. I think that dreams are more of a physical phenomena consisting of the experience of life (or state of consciousness) that the human mind has when the brain is asleep. I find it quite likely, however, that the human mind becomes even more sensitive to its spiritual environment when the brain shuts down the mind's connection to most of the physical senses. I can be looking at my wife, and close my eyes and find that I can't form a clear visual image of her in mind. The other night however I dreamt about my grandfather who died nearly 40 years ago and I had a very clear visual image of him. I find it strange that while asleep with my eyes closed I can visualize details that I can't when I'm awake with my eyes closed.
mitchellmckain writes: I believe that the observer in QM which collapses the wave function need not be something conscious at all. I think that it only requires a simple physical amplification process which makes the particular property, which is undetermined in the wave function, effect the behavior of many particles in a macroscopic effect. Is this the same thing as decoherence? While I'm at it I'm wondering what you think would be left of the universe if all consciousness ceased to exist. If a tree falls in a forest and there is no consciousness to observe or measure it does it make a sound?
mitchellmckain writes: Notice that I do not attribute the human mind and its activities to anything non-physical. It think that this confusion of the mental with the spiritual is a product of ignorance. But on the other hand I believe that all the activities of any living organism, including the human mind, involves a relationship between the physical process and a spiritual entity which is created by the choices made. It seems quite possible to me that this spiritual entity also represents a means by which the living organism can interact with other spiritual entities transcending time and space. As we are spiritual beings do you see our consciousness as being the part of us that survives physical death? If not, then what is the relationship of the mind, consciousness and soul. (Note to admin:I know we're in a science forum but I think that this is relative as this about establishing the boundary of science.)
mitchellmckain writes: Well the conscious observer may choose his reality in the spiritual world but in the physical world choice has very little to do with it. What do you mean by a coscious observer choosing his reality in the spiritual world. I have no scientific training and is there a simple way of explaining to me what you mean by non-linear equations? I know I have a lot of questions, but that is only because I have so few answers. Thanks again for your time and effort.Greg Edited by GDR, : To add a link Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
mitchellmckain writes: Yes of course. The quantitative measure of consciousness may differ by factors of millions to one, but yes; the ant much more conscious than the rose which is much more conscious than the amoeba. Although all of these may be more conscious as a species than as individuals (not sure though). Life processes occurs not only in these individual organisms but also in communities and even in the species as a whole. Certainly mankind is much more conscious as individuals than as a species or as communities. The development of the community consciousness of man is an important part of the next stage of human "evolution." I wouldn't have thought you'd go as far as a rose. If consciousness means that their existence continues into the next life then I'm ok with roses, but I hope that it doesn't go all the way down to dandelions. Actually, now I think of it, if as you say our spirit is part of our consciousness, then does it follow that a rose is eternal. That would be consistent with those physicists such as Barbour that talk about each moment of time being an eternal universe. Can you expand on the next phase of human evolution?
mitchellmckain writes: I do not think that existence of the physical universe or any part of it depends on the existence of consciousness. I guess I have trouble trying to imagine what could exist if there were no life in the universe to measure or observe particles. If time and space are merely illusions that are perceived by consciousness then how does change happen at all? How can the universe as we know it exist without change at some level? Isn't time just a construct by which our mind perceives change? By the way, as I'm sure you've gathered, I a long way out of my depth here.
mitchellmckain writes: I see the spirit as the part of us that survives death. The spirit participates in the life process we have now and that it is part of consiousness. It is in fact the true subject of consciousness. It is the "I" which ultimately claims our actions and thoughts as its own. But the spirit does not contain our current consciousness, which is a process that involves the body and mind as well. Since the body and mind dies, our consciousness must at least be transformed if it survives. For there to be consciousness there must be life and life requires interaction. So religion claims that spiritual life ultimately requires a relationship with God. Your contention is that human consciousness is made up of mind, brain and spirit. (I think) You said that the mind is a part of the brain and that both mind and brain cease with physical death. I still don't understand then the difference that you see between the brain and the mind. I understand that the brain is an organism but then it follows that the mind must be as well doesn't it? Why does spiritual life then require relationship with God? Wouldn't interaction with community suffice? (Not that I don't think that relationship with God is a very good thing.) Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
mitchellmckain writes: You have to understand what I mean when I say consciousness is quantitative. Clearly the rose does not think like we do, none of the living things on this planet do. But the rose bush is aware and self aware on some level because it responds to the environment and regulates its own internal activities. It could, however, be more conscious on a cellular level in which case its superiority over the amoeba would be mostly in the numbers of cells. That is very helpful. I assume then that you would consider all cellular life to have consciousness to one degree or another. I am still curious then if you believe that all consciousness is eternal.
mitchellmckain writes: Evolution occurs in stages because the evolution of individual ceases in some respect when it becomes a part of communal evolution. When communities are formed they start to protect the weaker members of the community. This is reminiscent of Dawkins "memes". Do you consider this human evolution to be physical or spiritual?
mm writes: The mind is a living organism whose substance is information (sensory data comming in from the body and and motor responses that are returned. An infant's motor responses start out as largely random but the infant's ability to see its own movements creates an information feed back loop which are part of a rudimentary lifeform which can learn (evolve) much much faster than biological organisms since its material requirements are minimal. I assume by that then the our memory is stored in the mind and that the brain then interprets information from the mind and responds. I think then that you are saying that the brain as a physical organism just performs as it is designed to do in the same way our heart does, but the mind evolves with time and experience throughout our life time. What is the mind then? Is it physical, spiritual or both? Wouldn't that mean then that the spirit after physical death would no longer have a memory of this life? Thanks again for your time. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
