Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

Originally posted by sirnex

What do you mean? Science does study consciousness.

yes, science is trying to study consciousness but the answers with the materialistic scientific methods are still far, far away from any answers...

Ah, another ATS user who loves to argue correlation proves causation.

like I said if there weren't any self awareness, we wouldn't be here... what is so hard to understand here? (I know, the problem is your arrogant close minded ego)

Because it's a logical fallacy, and most intelligent people try to avoid such things as much as possible.

if you were intelligent then you would never avoid such a thing, but most people are scared of the unknown

I propose we are indeed mindless zombies without a conscious mind.

yes, and by your arrogant posture I can only conclude that you are a very narcissistic zombie...

[edit on 23-12-2009 by donhuangenaro]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

There is no reality without an observer.

The rest of the post is just nonsense but the fact that you stated this much only forces me to refer back to the observer effect itself and how it is described. Please do not sensationalize for the sake of pushing a biased unfounded opinion forward as a fact. You really need to get out of the land of logical fallacies.

reply to post by donhuangenaro

yes, science is trying to study consciousness but the answers with the materialistic scientific methods are still far, far away from any answers...

Ah OK, so science is wrong because science can't fully answer everything upon the demands of your every whim, but the contrary of scientific knowledge can be true without proven to be true. Awesome view point, really tells me a lot of how you think, or lack of.

like I said if there weren't any self awareness, we wouldn't be here... what is so hard to understand here? (I know, the problem is your arrogant close minded ego)

I'm not arguing against that, I'm arguing against:

the epic fail of modern materialistic science is its' refusal to take the consciousness into account about life and the universe...

You do know how to read don't you?

if you were intelligent then you would never avoid such a thing, but most people are scared of the unknown

There is a strong distinction between the unknown and unfounded conjecture. You need to learn how to discern the two before you debate with me, I'm simply to hard headed to put up with unfounded conjectures.

yes, and by your arrogant posture I can only conclude that you are a very narcissistic zombie...

Aren't we all? I mean, your arguing of human specialty from a narcissistic point of view yourself; And now your equally a hypocritical zombie.

reply to post by sirnex


It isn't nonsense. It is because simply you cannot respond to it, because you lack the intellect to do so, so you resort to personal attacks. Sigh.

The statement "There is no reality without an observer" is not a fallacy at all, it is a truism. If there is no observer, nothing exists. Can you tell me what your face was before you were even born

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by sirnex
logical fallacies.

you are using this term constantly, but did you ever asked yourself if you do not understand something it's because it is not logical only to you?

talking about narcissistic behavior...

reply to post by donhuangenaro


Agreed. I think we should ask him what logial fallacy we are exactly comitting. I think it is the fallacy where he does not understand something or refuses to understand something

It is amusing arguing with materialists and realists. They don't seem to understand that they are not just passive receivers of sense impressions from a real world, but those sense impressions are being processed by their minds, ordered and organized before any perception is possible at all. This has been known in Philosophy of Mind since Kant. The view that we are just blank tablets receiving sense impressions from the world is an obsolete one.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by sirnex

I'm not arguing against that, I'm arguing against:

the epic fail of modern materialistic science is its' refusal to take the consciousness into account about life and the universe...

yes, like I said, science exclude consciousness to be any part of their mathematical formulas, and dogmatic arrogant scientists get angry (just like you are now) when there appears any possibility that mind effects the so called matter (which on quantum level do not exist but only as energy)...

You do know how to read don't you?

and you are calling yourself intelligent?

reply to post by donhuangenaro


Are you going to argue the points or remain arguing with puffs of smoke? I'm just curious here so we can set a more proper tone of debate. I'd prefer it to be on equal footing rather than one arguing facts and one arguing gaps.

reply to post by Indigo_Child

It isn't nonsense. It is because simply you cannot respond to it, because you lack the intellect to do so, so you resort to personal attacks. Sigh.

Awesome, I lack intellect while you applaud demonstratively erroneous information. I bet your parents are so proud of you.

The statement "There is no reality without an observer" is not a fallacy at all, it is a truism. If there is no observer, nothing exists. Can you tell me what your face was before you were even born

It's a logical fallacy as your implying conscious observation is what created reality. Correlation does not imply causation my new agey friend. Wish as much as you care to, it's still just wishful thinking.

reply to post by donhuangenaro

yes, like I said, science exclude consciousness to be any part of their mathematical formulas, and dogmatic arrogant scientists get angry (just like you are now) when there appears any possibility that mind effects the so called matter (which on quantum level do not exist but only as energy)...

Your asserting that consciousness is what created reality as well by erroneously utilizing the observer effect and a few other choice interpretations of quantum theory gleaned from new agey material that has been demonstrated to be wrong in their assertions of science. Science *does* study consciousness but there is no evidence known to science that demonstrates that reality exists because of consciousness. Do you understand that part or simply ignore it because then you wouldn't be oh so special?

O.K im going to show my lack of knowlege here but i need some answers.

I was under the impression that physics cant handle the effect of a conciouse observer on an experiment because this conciouse observer destroys the wave function or sets it back to zero.

This means that the effect of a conciouse observer. Would destroy any attempt to measure the effects of a conciouse observer bieng present.

Does this mean we could never measure the effects of a conciouse observer. No matter how advanced Quantum Mechanics becomes?

And Does this esentialy make the conciouse observer "god" and mean ultimately that conciouseness can produce any result it wants?

And what does this mean for you and me ei. The conciouse observer. Could we effect anything we wanted to become whatever we wanted.?

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by donhuangenaro

 

Agreed. I think we should ask him what logial fallacy we are exactly comitting. I think it is the fallacy where he does not understand something or refuses to understand something

It is amusing arguing with materialists and realists. They don't seem to understand that they are not just passive receivers of sense impressions from a real world, but those sense impressions are being processed by their minds, ordered and organized before any perception is possible at all. This has been known in Philosophy of Mind since Kant. The view that we are just blank tablets receiving sense impressions from the world is an obsolete one.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

because of people like that, science has been regressing in last 100 years not progressing...

there is a Max Planck quote that explain this:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”

where is the catch:

The discovery that particles are discrete packets of energy with wave-like properties led to the branch of physics that deals with atomic and subatomic systems which is today called quantum mechanics.

this means matter is in fact energy, so it is possible for consciousness (which is energy too) to influence matter...

I don't see any logical fallacy here

reply to post by Algebra

I was under the impression that physics cant handle the effect of a conciouse observer on an experiment because this conciouse observer destroys the wave function or sets it back to zero.

No, the observer effect describes the instruments doing the measurement, we only see the results of that effect. The observer effect also states that consciousness is not inherently the observer, but that two electrons interacting is enough to constitute as an 'observer'. I provided the source link so we could avoid the debate I'm currently in, but the other two still wish to hang upon their unfounded opinions out of arrogance irregardless of the facts.

This means that the effect of a conciouse observer. Would destroy any attempt to measure the effects of a conciouse observer bieng present.

How do your sensory organs work? When you 'see' something, the light has already interacted with your retina and then travels down the optic nerve into the brain to be visually processed. The light doesn't magically disappear before hitting the retina and flutter about into some magical conscious realm.

Does this mean we could never measure the effects of a conciouse observer. No matter how advanced Quantum Mechanics becomes?

Consciousness has no effect on reality itself nor is this postulated by quantum theory alone.

And Does this esentialy make the conciouse observer "god" and mean ultimately that conciouseness can produce any result it wants?

No, if this were true then all my years of playing the lottery and wishing and hoping and believing very strongly that the ticket I had was a winner would have indeed been a winner. Wishful thinking will always remain wishful thinking.

And what does this mean for you and me ei. The conciouse observer. Could we effect anything we wanted to become whatever we wanted.?

Consciousness does no observing, we 'see' the results of all interactions that take place in reality. Science has never stated any differently, irregardless of whatever demonstratively erroneous material people want to put forth and applaud.

reply to post by donhuangenaro

this means matter is in fact energy, so it is possible for consciousness (which is energy too) to influence matter...

Please take the time to review what energy is, you'll be pleasantly surprised to learn something. Do you want to counter claim that energy is a separate 'thing' that can exist without matter? This should be fun!

reply to post by sirnex



You clearly do not understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Correlation: P is related to Q
E.g. John's personality is related to Peters personality

Causation: If P then Q
E.g., If smoke, then fire

In a correlation if P is false, Q does not become false. As they do not cause each other, they are just related. In a causation if P is false then Q is also false. It is not possible for P to be false and Q to be true.

If there is no consciousness, there is no reality. In other words this is a relationship of the form P then Q i.e. causation. As soon as your consciousness ceases your reality will end.

There is no fallacy in this argument this is the classic argument of Phenomenology and was given by Edmund Husserl to show that consciousness is the prerequisite for there to be any world at all. The scientist assumes that there is a world out there independent of us waiting to be explored by them, this Husserl calls the "Natural assumption" It is only an assumption that there is a real world independent of us. As soon as you alter consciousness, the world becomes something different.
In altered states of consciousness, the world changes. For example in dream consciousness the world appears differently.

Thus there is an invariable and concommitant relationship between consciousness and reality. If your consciousness changes, so does your world.

Does this mean we could never measure the effects of a conciouse observer. No matter how advanced Quantum Mechanics becomes?

I think what you are trying to say here is can it measure the causes of a conscious observer. Everything is an effect of the conscious observer, including electricity, and only effects can be measured. It is causes which cannot be measured.

No Quantum Mechanics will never be able to measure the causes. The observer effect is all about that, in every attempt we make to measure or detect something, we change the outcome. Thus causes will always be outside of empirical science.

And Does this esentialy make the conciouse observer "god" and mean ultimately that conciouseness can produce any result it wants?

And what does this mean for you and me ei. The conciouse observer. Could we effect anything we wanted to become whatever we wanted.?

This is a problem wiith many thinkers in quantum mechanics and new-age thinkers. They believe they are the observer and therefore creating reality. This is false, it is not we who are collapsing reality, it is the absolute observer or "god" We are already collapsed. God is the supreme observer that is making reality possible. Hence, why our bodes can die a thousand deaths and reality still remains. In that sense reality is objective and not subjective. We are not creating it.

We are basically like particles or fragments of god and god experiences infinite realities through us.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child

You clearly do not understand the difference between correlation and causation.

No, apparently I don't. Wow, thank God you schooled me on that one.

All these examples deal with a lurking variable, which is simply a hidden third variable that affects both clauses of the correlation; for example, the fact that it is summer in Example 3.

s ource

Now how about we try using it properly huh, before attempting to school me on it.

If there is no consciousness, there is no reality. In other words this is a relationship of the form P then Q i.e. causation. As soon as your consciousness ceases your reality will end.

Simply untrue. We all exist within the same reality. Before my children observed reality, I existed as I observed reality existing as well. Reality did not care to not exist prior to my children existence.

When my consciousness ceases, I cease to observe reality, this does not imply that reality itself ceases to exist altogether.

As soon as you alter consciousness, the world becomes something different.
In altered states of consciousness, the world changes. For example in dream consciousness the world appears differently.

More correctly stated, as soon as you alter the brains chemistry and inner workings with psychoactive substances, reality is perceived differently, but still exists as it normally exists irregardless of your hallucinatory perception of it. You may trip when doing acid and see yourself melting into a pool of orange juice, but you are certainly not melting at all and all others around you whom are sober will attest to this fact. Do you understand what consciousness is and it's relation to the brain? Define it for me, just a brief definition will suffice.

reply to post by Indigo_Child

I think what you are trying to say here is can it measure the causes of a conscious observer. Everything is an effect of the conscious observer, including electricity, and only effects can be measured. It is causes which cannot be measured.

No Quantum Mechanics will never be able to measure the causes. The observer effect is all about that, in every attempt we make to measure or detect something, we change the outcome. Thus causes will always be outside of empirical science.

Why are you propagating BS lies? The observer effect does not say anything about that at all period. I cited exactly what the observer effect does state. Your a damned liar, and openly doing so despite the cited facts against the lie. You disgust me that you can so openly go that far to assert your unfounded conjecture. Unbelievable!

This is a problem wiith many thinkers in quantum mechanics and new-age thinkers. They believe they are the observer and therefore creating reality. This is false, it is not we who are collapsing reality, it is the absolute observer or "god" We are already collapsed. God is the supreme observer that is making reality possible. Hence, why our bodes can die a thousand deaths and reality still remains. In that sense reality is objective and not subjective. We are not creating it.

We are basically like particles or fragments of god and god experiences infinite realities through us.

Absolute unfounded conjecture! Also a hypocrite as evident by the nature of your responses on page one. You never seem to have implied once that it wasn't us and that it was instead God being the observer. You clearly implied that we did the act of observation. You hypocritical liar, unbelievable, really just nonsense.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Algebra

 

I was under the impression that physics cant handle the effect of a conciouse observer on an experiment because this conciouse observer destroys the wave function or sets it back to zero.

No, the observer effect describes the instruments doing the measurement, we only see the results of that effect. The observer effect also states that consciousness is not inherently the observer, but that two electrons interacting is enough to constitute as an 'observer'. I provided the source link so we could avoid the debate I'm currently in, but the other two still wish to hang upon their unfounded opinions out of arrogance irregardless of the facts.

This means that the effect of a conciouse observer. Would destroy any attempt to measure the effects of a conciouse observer bieng present.

How do your sensory organs work? When you 'see' something, the light has already interacted with your retina and then travels down the optic nerve into the brain to be visually processed. The light doesn't magically disappear before hitting the retina and flutter about into some magical conscious realm.

Does this mean we could never measure the effects of a conciouse observer. No matter how advanced Quantum Mechanics becomes?

Consciousness has no effect on reality itself nor is this postulated by quantum theory alone.

And Does this esentialy make the conciouse observer "god" and mean ultimately that conciouseness can produce any result it wants?

No, if this were true then all my years of playing the lottery and wishing and hoping and believing very strongly that the ticket I had was a winner would have indeed been a winner. Wishful thinking will always remain wishful thinking.

And what does this mean for you and me ei. The conciouse observer. Could we effect anything we wanted to become whatever we wanted.?

Consciousness does no observing, we 'see' the results of all interactions that take place in reality. Science has never stated any differently, irregardless of whatever demonstratively erroneous material people want to put forth and applaud.

O.K thanks.

A lot to think about.

What is your backround by the way? if you dont mind me asking

reply to post by Algebra

O.K thanks.

A lot to think about.

What is your backround by the way? if you dont mind me asking

Your welcome and I prefer anonymity, if that is OK.