Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
43 online now:
dwise1, Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,630 Year: 1,378/23,288 Month: 1,378/1,851 Week: 18/484 Day: 18/93 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reality is not based upon our perception.
GDR
Member
Posts: 5061
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 9 of 37 (346029)
09-02-2006 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gospel Preacher
09-01-2006 9:09 PM


If a tree falls in the forest etc.... Does the uncertainity principle require some form of consciousness to cause change. How can we ever know what exists or what happens, (if anything at all) if there is nothing there to observe or measure it. Are we only talking about human consciouness or does all life have consciouness.

Lots of questions and lots of opinions but few if any absolute answers as near as I can tell.

Here is some information on two guys who have studied this question in depth.

wikipedia on Penrsoe writes:


Physics and consciousness
Penrose has written controversial books on the connection between fundamental physics and human consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of human consciousness. Penrose hints at the characteristics this new physics may have and specifies the requirements for a bridge between classical and quantum mechanics (what he terms correct quantum gravity, CQG). He argues against the viewpoint that the rational processes of the human mind are completely algorithmic and can thus be duplicated by a sufficiently complex computer -- this is in contrast to views, e.g., Biological Naturalism, that human behavior but not consciousness might be simulated. This is based on claims that human consciousness transcends formal logic systems because things such as the insolvability of the halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem restrict an algorithmically based logic from traits such as mathematical insight. These claims were originally made by the philosopher John Lucas of Merton College, Oxford.

In 1994, Penrose followed up The Emperor's New Mind with Shadows of the Mind and in 1997 with The Large, the Small and the Human Mind, further updating and explaining his theories.

Penrose's views on the human thought process are not widely accepted in scientific circles. According to Marvin Minsky, because people can construe false ideas to be factual, the process of thinking is not limited to formal logic. Further, AI programs can also conclude that false statements are true, so error is not unique to humans. Another dissenter, Charles Seife, has said, "Penrose, the Oxford mathematician famous for his work on tiling the plane with various shapes, is one of a handful of scientists who believe that the ephemeral nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process."

Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have constructed a theory in which human consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules. But Max Tegmark, in a paper in Physical Review E, calculated that the time scale of neuron firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000. The reception of the paper is summed up by this statement in his support: "Physicists outside the fray, such as IBM's John Smolin, say the calculations confirm what they had suspected all along. 'We're not working with a brain that's near absolute zero. It's reasonably unlikely that the brain evolved quantum behavior', he says." The Tegmark paper has been widely cited by critics of the Penrose-Hameroff proposal. It has been claimed by Hameroff to be based on a number of incorrect assumptions (see linked paper below from Hameroff, Hagan and Tuszynski), but Tegmark in turn has argued that the critique is invalid (see rejoinder link below).

Here is the wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

Here is Hameroff's web site

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gospel Preacher, posted 09-01-2006 9:09 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by 1.61803, posted 09-05-2006 12:31 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5061
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 15 of 37 (346697)
09-05-2006 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by 1.61803
09-05-2006 12:31 PM


I agree. Particularly when it comes to whistling a happy tune. :)

1.61803 writes:

I believe there is a intimate relationship between conciousness / observation and causality. I also believe perception of reality is causal as well.

I agree but is that a philosophical or a scientific position? (Maybe something of each.) Can that position ever be proven using the scientific method?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by 1.61803, posted 09-05-2006 12:31 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by 1.61803, posted 09-05-2006 3:49 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5061
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 17 of 37 (346736)
09-05-2006 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by 1.61803
09-05-2006 3:49 PM


I'm with you. I have trouble understanding the argument for the universe being deterministic.

Let's say I'm going to the store. At the last second I decide to drive the scenic route which is something I virtually never do. Three blocks later I'm nailed by a drunk driver and die.

Same scenario but I take the normal route, arrive home safely with my bread and milk and get on with life which includes fathering 12 kids of which one finds a cure for cancer.

The only difference from the two very different outcomes is a seemingly innocuous conscious decision.

It just makes sense to me that the universe has to function in a way that allows for a virtually infinite number of futures. It seems to me that QM is discovering the mechanism that allows for that, and what appears to be basic to that mechanism is observation or measurement which require consciousness.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by 1.61803, posted 09-05-2006 3:49 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by 1.61803, posted 09-05-2006 4:59 PM GDR has responded
 Message 19 by iano, posted 09-05-2006 5:05 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5061
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 20 of 37 (346778)
09-05-2006 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by 1.61803
09-05-2006 4:59 PM


1.61803 writes:

You'll awaken Cave diver and Wounded King.

:) I guess cavediver is still moving. It is unbelievable to me that I can with my Brian Greene course on physics use this forum to get teaching from a guy with his credentials. I'll be glad when he's back.

I tend to think though that if I'm in disagreement with cavediver then I'm either dead wrong or don't understand the question. (probably both. :frazzled: )

1.61803 writes:

I believe it is like many things in nature a little of both. We can decide to tip the dominoe over or not...but once done it follows its course.

I'm still curious to know what would exist if anything if all consciousness ceased. Mitchel Mckain in a thread recently posted that it is his contention that all cellular life has consciousness, and that the difference between us and plant and animal life is the degree of our consciousness. I'm inclined to agree. If then there is no consciousness of any degree to observe, measure or interact in any way would what some physicists call the illusion of space and time just cease to exist?

In answer to the OT then I in my view I'm inclined to believe that reality is very much based on our perceptions.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by 1.61803, posted 09-05-2006 4:59 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by 1.61803, posted 09-05-2006 8:46 PM GDR has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5061
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 21 of 37 (346786)
09-05-2006 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by iano
09-05-2006 5:05 PM


iano writes:

Depends on how determined you are. Anyone who argues so has to argue so it would seem. They have no choice in the matter for there is no choice.

It seems to me then that the only way for there to be no choice is to agree that there is an intelligence outside of this existence that knew that I was going to take the scenic route to the grocery store prior to the beginning of time. (This position it would seem to me would make an infinite universe impossible.)

A non-deterministic view of things seems to me to allow for but not necessarily require a metaphysical intelligence.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 09-05-2006 5:05 PM iano has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 5061
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 23 of 37 (346859)
09-05-2006 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by 1.61803
09-05-2006 8:46 PM


1.61803 writes:

There was a time in our past when there was no planet Earth. No sun. And yet events unfolded to produce our planet and galaxy.

But like everything else, that is how our consciousness perceives it. Don't forget that quantum entanglement occurs across time as well as space.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by 1.61803, posted 09-05-2006 8:46 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020