It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How to spot quantum quackery

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


you realy only posted an insult and how much you enjoy being able to insult these particular opinions.

That is correct.


not even any intelligent discusion on the question at hand, just a simple siding with the source of the article, how shamefull.

I have participated in dozens of 'intelligent discussions on the question at hand', in dozens of threads on this subject that already exist on ATS. I am tired of repeating myself.

To believe that states of matter can be intentionally altered merely by thinking is to believe wishes can come true by magic. It is tragic nonsense, and only the ubiquity of human desire and desperation that gives it currency at all.




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   

What does this guy think about quantum mechanics in neuroplasticity?

You can call it consciousness if you want - or you can call it the phenomenon of self-directed neuroplasticity.

Obviously QM has - if correct - influenced the evolution of our brain...


Once again Beebs it looks like you and I see eye to eye.

I think the real issue is people whom have opinions such as the OP, either have their fingers in their ears or they have not studied Quantum Mechanics.

Was it not Arthur C Clarke whom said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." For those that have Zero understanding of Quantum Theory would of course think that the conclusions are as fanciful as magic and of course cannot be real.

I can tell you this mr op’er, go and read a few books and start to obverse your life around you, then take a logical step and relate the two.

I gave you a star beebs because so far it appears only you have any clue on this thread.

This from The Great John Hagelin PhD.





Korg.



edit on 22-9-2010 by Korg Trinity because:




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



To believe that states of matter can be intentionally altered merely by thinking is to believe wishes can come true by magic.


What is your meaning of 'states of matter'? Because if it is what science says... then it is not 'matter' in the outdated classical sense - but probability wave functions (or something of the like, however you wish to term it... I prefer cymatic geometry from ZP vibration).

And even if I take at face value your statement of 'matter', then I offer this as a verified example of how 'states of matter' can indeed be intentionally altered 'merely by thinking':

Neuroplasticity (also known as cortical re-mapping) refers to the ability of the human brain to change as a result of one's experience, that the brain is 'plastic' and 'malleable'.


More specifically:

It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that there is at least one type of information
processing and manipulation that does not readily lend itself to explanations that assume
that all final causes are subsumed within brain, or more generally, CNS mechanisms. The
cases in question are those in which the conscious act of willfully altering the mode by
which experiential information is processed itself changes, in systematic ways, the
cerebral mechanisms utilized. There is a growing recognition of the theoretical
importance of applying experimental paradigms that employ directed mental effort in
order to produce systematic and predictable changes in brain function (e.g., Beauregard et
al. 2001; Ochsner et al. 2002). These wilfully induced brain changes are generally
accomplished through training in the cognitive reattribution and attentional
recontextualization of conscious experience.



Further, an accelerating number of studies in the neuroimaging literature significantly support the thesis that, again, with appropriate training and effort, people can systematically alter neural circuitry associated with a variety of mental and physical states that are frankly pathological (Schwartz et al. 1996; Schwartz 1998; Musso et al. 1999; Paquette et al. 2003). A recent review of this and the related neurological literature has coined the term “self-directed neuroplasticity” to serve as a general description of the principle that focused training and effort can systematically alter cerebral function in a predictable and potentially therapeutic manner
(Schwartz & Begley 2002).


Quantum Physics in Neuroscience and Psychology: A
New Model with Respect to Mind/Brain Interaction


Neuroplasticity Wiki


----

@ Korg -

Indeed, and thanks.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Tnak you. Seriously. It's as if magical thinking has invaded the sciences lately and no one has - until this article - had the nuts to call these people out on this crap.

I will agree that the human perception hasn't got a lock on reality, but if physical existence does, in fact, maintain existence - which, by all indications, it does - then a foundational "real" must not only exist, but it must be (in some sense) dependable and even immutable to a certain extent. This assertion that whenever I let a loaf drop in the bowl, that an infinite number of loafs drop into an infinite number of bowls, with all of them initiating fully legitimate trajectories that will then branch from instant to instant into limitless numbers of realities that will then branch from instant to instant and into.....I don't know what that ends up amounting to, or why the need exists for such a complete mess of meaningless creation.

What I do know is that existence is not valueless, and for something to exist, there must be impetus and opportunity linked directly to its emergence. If not, then nothing has form or function, and we already know that that assertion is patently false. What no one seems to want to do is accept that reality is both more adventurous and more mundane than the extremes will allow it to be. No one in the middle seems to want to take on the fringers.

Meanwhile reality sits well between the published geniuses who are calling each other crazy for being so extreme.



edit on 9/22/2010 by NorEaster because: too many reasons to list



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Astyanax
 



To believe that states of matter can be intentionally altered merely by thinking is to believe wishes can come true by magic.


What is your meaning of 'states of matter'? Because if it is what science says... then it is not 'matter' in the outdated classical sense - but probability wave functions (or something of the like, however you wish to term it... I prefer cymatic geometry from ZP vibration).

And even if I take at face value your statement of 'matter', then I offer this as a verified example of how 'states of matter' can indeed be intentionally altered 'merely by thinking':

Neuroplasticity (also known as cortical re-mapping) refers to the ability of the human brain to change as a result of one's experience, that the brain is 'plastic' and 'malleable'.


More specifically:

It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that there is at least one type of information
processing and manipulation that does not readily lend itself to explanations that assume
that all final causes are subsumed within brain, or more generally, CNS mechanisms. The
cases in question are those in which the conscious act of willfully altering the mode by
which experiential information is processed itself changes, in systematic ways, the
cerebral mechanisms utilized. There is a growing recognition of the theoretical
importance of applying experimental paradigms that employ directed mental effort in
order to produce systematic and predictable changes in brain function (e.g., Beauregard et
al. 2001; Ochsner et al. 2002). These wilfully induced brain changes are generally
accomplished through training in the cognitive reattribution and attentional
recontextualization of conscious experience.



Further, an accelerating number of studies in the neuroimaging literature significantly support the thesis that, again, with appropriate training and effort, people can systematically alter neural circuitry associated with a variety of mental and physical states that are frankly pathological (Schwartz et al. 1996; Schwartz 1998; Musso et al. 1999; Paquette et al. 2003). A recent review of this and the related neurological literature has coined the term “self-directed neuroplasticity” to serve as a general description of the principle that focused training and effort can systematically alter cerebral function in a predictable and potentially therapeutic manner
(Schwartz & Begley 2002).


Quantum Physics in Neuroscience and Psychology: A
New Model with Respect to Mind/Brain Interaction


Neuroplasticity Wiki


----

@ Korg -

Indeed, and thanks.


Changing the brain's functional directives through altering the way that the brain functions (which is basically what your references are suggesting) is a far cry from altering a disconnected and physically isolated whole by way of that brain activity. One is like affecting the gas/air mixture in a carburetor by tweaking the adjustments, whereas the other is like inflating the tires by tweaking the carburetor. The statements you've chosen don't suggest that the human brain can affect anything external. Only the way it - itself - operates and functions. That's not quantum mechanics. That's learning.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


you realy only posted an insult and how much you enjoy being able to insult these particular opinions.

That is correct.


not even any intelligent discusion on the question at hand, just a simple siding with the source of the article, how shamefull.

I have participated in dozens of 'intelligent discussions on the question at hand', in dozens of threads on this subject that already exist on ATS. I am tired of repeating myself.

To believe that states of matter can be intentionally altered merely by thinking is to believe wishes can come true by magic. It is tragic nonsense, and only the ubiquity of human desire and desperation that gives it currency at all.



no one forces you to post there is no reason for you to become tired of it, or maybe you are told to post? besides you being tired of posting on topic posts is no excuse to allow yourself to post off topic insults, however i do see you've gotten away with it, you must be some kinda teachers pet, kissing one of the mods butts.

for you to say that thought itself does not change the state of matter shows how uninformed you are on this subject, or else your in disagreement with many physicists who im sure have more professional experience regarding the subject then you do.

regardless, like hell if i'm gonna take your unfounded and baseless opinions as anything to compare with the results from thousands of controled experiments performed.


here's a way to make a claim with a base instead of baseless.

you said "To believe that states of matter can be intentionally altered merely by thinking is to believe wishes can come true by magic. It is tragic nonsense, and only the ubiquity of human desire and desperation that gives it currency at all."

again just an insult, not productive to conversation at all, you are not contributing with that attitude, but i can assume what you are saying is that something like the double slit experiment is not proof of observer relationship to the observed, as physcists have proven it is,

so please what evidence or base have you for disagreeing with these controlled experiments? oh i know just your own doubt and blind opinion. right?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye

are you trying to look for the least appealing and most unfounded? it sure seems that way,


Yes I was, because to me, that was pretty much the point of the original article. Quantum quackery. Why do you find it least appealing and most unfounded?


i got one better for you

vids.myspace.com...

your OP's source is of the opinion that Michio Kaku is also a crackpot,


Interesting. I hadn't seen that one before, but I don't think Lawrence Krauss is calling Kaku a crackpot. Or maybe he is, I don't know. Granted, Krauss doesn't agree with the whole multiverse idea, but it seems that what he's going after is expressed in the article's original question: "Can the weirdness of quantum mechanics make you well, or make you wealthy?" and the promoters of such as Deepak Chopra, and the book "The Secret." No real quantum mechanics there, just junk science.



so your point here is that you made this thread for the sole purpose of discrediting quantum mechanics and the observer/observed relationship? why? isnt that biased and closed minded? or was your only intent to agree with your source for the OP



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Changing the brain's functional directives through altering the way that the brain functions (which is basically what your references are suggesting) is a far cry from altering a disconnected and physically isolated whole by way of that brain activity. One is like affecting the gas/air mixture in a carburetor by tweaking the adjustments, whereas the other is like inflating the tires by tweaking the carburetor. The statements you've chosen don't suggest that the human brain can affect anything external. Only the way it - itself - operates and functions. That's not quantum mechanics. That's learning.


Well, did you read the entire paper?

'functional directives' are based on physical structures in the brain. So, through conscious input a physical structure is changed by sheer force of will.

I never claimed that a person could make things levitate with their mind - although I do not rule it out as a possibility once we truly know the laws of physics and our relation to them.

And again it must be remembered that electrical impulses are subject to quantum effects. And if QM is correct(or on the right track) then it would be naive to suspect that our brain does not use Quantum Mechanical phenomenon - as our brain has evolved from the laws of physics, not what we think the laws of physics are.

We are not isolated from external objects in the sense that it appears to our empirical senses. We are not isolated from the quantum system. In the spirit of Shrodinger's cat, perhaps we are 'in the box'.

Several features of human consciousness persistently elude scientific explanation. The emergence of a consciously observed world from a neuronal substrate entails a serious topological paradox: neuronal elements can be spatially separated whereas the space in which conscious perception takes place is experienced as an inseparable unity [1]. Any operation mapping the world experienced in consciousness onto a neuronal substrate will inevitably destroy the integrity of the self as inner observer by spatial distribution resulting in separated and reduced sub-selves. More intuitively than rigorously explainable by scientific reasoning, a solution of this paradox has been approached by consciousness models based on a configuration space arising from non-local quantum effects in the brain [2,3]. In particular, effects based on quantum coherence or non-locality, e.g., EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) phenomena or entanglement have been suggested to provide mechanisms by which the self stays holistic and irreducible despite of being spatially distributed.

Non-local quantum evolution of entangled ensemble states in neural nets and its significance for brain function and a theory of consciousness

And if you know what EPR bridges are, then that will serve as a reminder to how serious(seriously wacky) this stuff really is.

If this type of discussion just gets ridiculed... well then I suppose we are doomed as a species.

Ideas are the medium of progress. If you do not allow ideas, how does progress become?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Want to see some hard, mathematical connections between quantum mechanics and metaphysics in the form of Kabbalah? Here are a few to wet your appetite:
1. quantum mechanics requires space-time to have 26 dimensions for spinless, 1-dimensional objects called "strings" in order to satisfy the basic requirement that operators of two observables at points separated by a causally connectable, space-like interval must commute. The gematria number value of Yahweh, the Godname of Chokmah in the Tree of Life is 26.
2. the dimension of the rank-8 Lie group E8 appearing in superstring theory is 248. This is the mean of the squares of the 25 integers 2-26. 248 is the number value of Raziel, the Archangel of Chokmah.
3. the quantum field theory of 10-dimensional superstrings is free of quantum anomalies provided that their interactions are mediated by the virtual exchange of 496 spin-1 bosons. 496 is the gematria number value of Malkuth, the last Sephirah of the Tree of Life, signifying the physical universe revealed by the five human senses.

If you want to learn about the REAL AND PROFOUND, mathematical connections between religions and science (as opposed to the empty speculations by New Age quacks, visit:
smphillips.8m.com...
and study the research articles and wealth of material to be encountered there.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Star, Flag, and dissent.

I think this is a great topic precisely because quantum mechanics has so much potential for abuse by the "anything can happen, that means my beliefs are true!" crowd who base their beliefs on what makes them feel good rather than an honest search for truth no matter how painful.

But it's babies and bathwater again. We don't agree on how to interpret quantum mechanics, and we don't know anything about this phenomenon called consciousness. Why so quick to dismiss the notion that maybe they're related?

Krauss in the interview deflects this issue by saying we don't even understand "classical consciousness", whatever that means. In classical physics the universe is a giant 3-D billiards table. There is no room whatsoever for consciousness. Yet we know that consciousness exists. We also have a whole new branch of physics that might leave room for it. Maybe it's a dead end. But that remains to be seen. It needs to be explored first.

My dissent can be summed up in a previous thread of mine, "In Defense of Quantum Mysticism", linked here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I encourage reading it.



edit on 22-9-2010 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Tnak you. Seriously. It's as if magical thinking has invaded the sciences lately and no one has - until this article - had the nuts to call these people out on this crap.

.....This assertion that whenever I let a loaf drop in the bowl, that an infinite number of loafs drop into an infinite number of bowls, with all of them initiating fully legitimate trajectories that will then branch from instant to instant into limitless numbers of realities that will then branch from instant to instant and into.....I don't know what that ends up amounting to, or why the need exists for such a complete mess of meaningless creation.




I would say you were full of Quantum Qrap.
I agree, it seems like all lot of the theories that science churns out nowadays.

It seems like they develop a theory, then they build another theory on top of that theory, then, Whoa-Ho! look out, have we got a doozy for you folks, now lets just suppose.....

It's like the federal reserve creating money from thin air, and loaning it out at interest, a whole system develops on this scheme, like theories, created from an idea, then it turns into a real belief. Then it's accepted as the way it is.

Hmmm, bad example, but that's how I look at it, physicists, taking a theory and creating theories from theories.
Like building an addition to a large house that sits on a sandy riverbank.
The foundation from which it is built is suspect.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Toadmund
 


a perfect example of how none of you know wth your talking about, you posted all this is nothing but a theory based upon a theory and nothing more, you clearly think they draw the theories out of thin air for no reason at all,

your forgeting the controlled experiments that lead them to theorize,

the only reason they theorize is to try and explain what they are witnessing in the controlled experiments, if you dont like their theories then you have to present a better theory to explain what was witnessed if you cannot better explain what they witness then they can, then obviously you fail and they are on a more accurate track.


all i'm seeing in this thread is people polarizing with whether they like or dislike the current theories there are.

well i tell you it is foolish to dislike a theory without having one of your own, such baseless opinions have no place here, they are not productive, so i encourage all of you with these opinions, pleeeeeaaaaaasssseee present some freaking base,



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by Toadmund
 


a perfect example of how none of you know wth your talking about, you posted all this is nothing but a theory based upon a theory and nothing more, you clearly think they draw the theories out of thin air for no reason at all,




I or we are not disputing that some quantum mechanics studies are not the best explanation we have to help explain the sub-atomic world, it's just that, like multiple universes, it just branches off into fantasy land sometimes.

I just look at some of these theories and think.
'Yeah, OK, how much of this is some physicists imagination gone wild?'

Personally I do not dispute that we live in a mysterious Universe, it is a mystery, it still is a mystery, we haven't figured it out yet. All that stuff is someones theory, the best explanation they have based on their evidence, and they build on it.
Which can be true, or not true.

And like the OP's link states, the sub-atomic world has stuff going on that is not like that in the macro world, it's like there is too much matter diluting and interfering with quantum effects. Perhaps a quantum effect would have to affect all of our sub-atomic particles at once for it to manifest in the macro world (philadelphia experiment perhaps?)

Anyway, they are theories.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Changing the brain's functional directives through altering the way that the brain functions (which is basically what your references are suggesting) is a far cry from altering a disconnected and physically isolated whole by way of that brain activity. One is like affecting the gas/air mixture in a carburetor by tweaking the adjustments, whereas the other is like inflating the tires by tweaking the carburetor. The statements you've chosen don't suggest that the human brain can affect anything external. Only the way it - itself - operates and functions. That's not quantum mechanics. That's learning.


Well, did you read the entire paper?



No, and I didn't refer to the entire paper either.


Changing the brain's functional directives through altering the way that the brain functions (which is basically what your references are suggesting) is a far cry from altering a disconnected and physically isolated whole by way of that brain activity.


I believe that the human consciousness is dynamic and determinable, but I don't agree that the corporeal phase of human development is where that level of Intellect functionality is normally possible. The corporeal human being's gathering Intellect mass is focused on development and refinement, and if it's not, then it will definitely suffer as a result of that diffusion of focus. The corporeal phase is extremely brief, and there is so much that needs to be accomplished during this phase of development. My issue is the popular notion that stunting the impact of this critical phase of human gestation is somehow a positive step toward overcoming the need for it. The need exists, and the development of the Intellect is crucial to the proper development of the whole being.

This unwise fixation on leaping past learning and development stages, as if a person can somehow become fully expressed without moving through the necessary stages, is like being a child who is robbed of his/her childhood due to circumstances of their life. We are corporeal for a very important reason, and we can't become fully human until we move through this phase and gain as much as possible from it. Sadly, "as much as possible" is a measure that can mean very little in relative amount.

Existence - at the epitome human level - is a priviledge, and there is more effort and dedicated discipline involved in allowing each of us this priviledge that we could ever imagine. Every spinning electron, every micro-factory within each cell, every molecule that dedicates its entire span of existence to making sure that we maintain physical consistency; all of it deserves our commitment to representing that effort with our best choices in life. They work relentlessly so that we, as the conscious expression of all that sacrifice, will be able to gain as much from this phase of development as we possibly can. And that means getting to know and appreciate the fundamental nature of corporeal existence, even as we employ it to create our eternal selves.

Maybe it's a good thing to insist that we are gods while we stumble around in the dirt, but I simply believe that at some point we are served well by embracing our corporeal nature, and really experiencing it in as positive and as compassionate a manner as is possible. Our futures will be lived in the eternal realm, and this phase will seem to have been over before it started. Why the hurry to transcend it?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Tnak you. Seriously. It's as if magical thinking has invaded the sciences lately and no one has - until this article - had the nuts to call these people out on this crap.

.....This assertion that whenever I let a loaf drop in the bowl, that an infinite number of loafs drop into an infinite number of bowls, with all of them initiating fully legitimate trajectories that will then branch from instant to instant into limitless numbers of realities that will then branch from instant to instant and into.....I don't know what that ends up amounting to, or why the need exists for such a complete mess of meaningless creation.




I would say you were full of Quantum Qrap.
I agree, it seems like all lot of the theories that science churns out nowadays.

It seems like they develop a theory, then they build another theory on top of that theory, then, Whoa-Ho! look out, have we got a doozy for you folks, now lets just suppose.....

It's like the federal reserve creating money from thin air, and loaning it out at interest, a whole system develops on this scheme, like theories, created from an idea, then it turns into a real belief. Then it's accepted as the way it is.

Hmmm, bad example, but that's how I look at it, physicists, taking a theory and creating theories from theories.
Like building an addition to a large house that sits on a sandy riverbank.
The foundation from which it is built is suspect.



And in the end, a theoretical quantum physicist is granted a published paper, which gives him (generally) a career boost and maybe even a book deal. Huiman beings aren't hard to figure out. No different than the "archeologists" who get their digs sponsored by extremely wealthy Evangelical think tanks, just so long as they're "searching" for the right stuff.

And yes, I probably am full of Quantum Qrap.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


So we are on opposite sides of the spectrum I think... you are more of a realist, and I, more of an idealist.

I want to travel to the stars and live in as close of a utopia as I can. I want to do it together, with everyone in peace and intellectual progress.

I am young now, so I can help to bring that to a reality - and the closer I can get to that will be all the more worth it because humanity is at rock bottom with the potential to be so much.

I want my corporeal existence to be better.

Its just a ride.

The Big Idea.






posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye


so your point here is that you made this thread for the sole purpose of discrediting quantum mechanics and the observer/observed relationship? why? isnt that biased and closed minded? or was your only intent to agree with your source for the OP


I suggest you read the article again. I think you have missed the entire point.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Actually its the "quacks" (Metaphysicists) that have been talking about and predicted all the Behaviours of the quantum world hundreds and even thousands of years before Physicists "discovered" these things. Science moves forward in snail pace. In another 1000 years they will have caught up with Metaphysics.

I apologize for the dissent.


edit on 21-9-2010 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



Exactly my view too. Science is very slow-moving with its linear and logical approach. Quantum mechanics which is a rogue science (because scientists appear to hate it) is only starting to discover what was known hundreds of years ago.

At least QM is embracing the more spiritual, philosophical and metaphysical concepts. I would even say that given time QM will take in esoteric notions fully.

In my opinion , had we used more of the right side of the brain rather than relying entirely on the left side (as scientists do) we would have accomplished deep space travel a long time ago. It is not about spending trillions of dollars in manufacturing a machine that can achieve anti-gravity of travel a speed of light (
- as if that was possible). It is more about learning to alter the reality around us so that we can break out of all limitations. This is probably what so-called aliens do.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
It's babies and bathwater again. We don't agree on how to interpret quantum mechanics, and we don't know anything about this phenomenon called consciousness. Why so quick to dismiss the notion that maybe they're related?

They are related, inasmuch as human brains produce both consciousness and quantum mechanics. I don't think anyone intelligent is dismissing that notion.

The notion to be dismissed--and not just dismissed but lampooned, laughed at and launched out of court with a good strong kick--is the risible and pernicious one of mind over matter. No amount of quantum wizardry can make objects respond to the power of conscious thought without physical manipulation. There is not one result in quantum mechanics that even remotely suggests humans have the power to alter things merely by thinking about or looking at them.

There is absolutely no scientific support for that kind of quantum quackery. There are no free lunches.

*



Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
for you to say that thought itself does not change the state of matter shows how uninformed you are on this subject, or else your in disagreement with many physicists who im sure have more professional experience regarding the subject then you do.

No physicist on Earth--no reputable one, anyway--believes in mind over matter. Your quibbles about the nature of matter and all the rest are just rehashings of bad journalistic babble found on the internet. You read this refuse and think you know physics.


Well, did you read the entire paper?

I looked at both the papers you posted. They are both theoretical and speculative, not based on any experiments in either quantum mechanics or neuroscience. Just model-making. The PDF was complete rubbish. And neuroplasticity has nothing at all to do with what you're talking about.


I am young now

Yes, that's pretty clear. Young and hopeful. I think you know very little about quantum mechanics, too little to even understand how little you know. If you still hold the opinions you currently do after you have been educated--which I seriously doubt--then we'll talk again.

edit on 23/9/10 by Astyanax because: the sky is blue and so are you.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



I looked at both the papers you posted. They are both theoretical and speculative, not based on any experiments in either quantum mechanics or neuroscience. Just model-making. The PDF was complete rubbish. And neuroplasticity has nothing at all to do with what you're talking about.


Yes, they are theoretical peer reviewed papers... See the problem I have with statements such as this, is that I have no clue how to talk with someone like yourself that denies these new frameworks are emerging in a real, solid science. What else am I supposed to do besides posting peer reviewed theoretical papers? Self-directed neuro-plasticity is self explanatory and is real - don't know what else to say to you... If you disagree with the frontiers of psychology and neuroscience... well... have at 'em hoss. I am just the messenger.

You say the PDF was complete rubbish... are you referring to the first one, Quantum Physics in Neuroscience and Psychology? Please be kind and point out what exactly is rubbish about it.

I mean, arXiv.org is NOT the only place that paper has been published - thats just where I linked to... In fact I think it was originally the Royal Society.


Yes, that's pretty clear. Young and hopeful. I think you know very little about quantum mechanics, too little to even understand how little you know. If you still hold the opinions you currently do after you have been educated--which I seriously doubt--then we'll talk again.


Haha and arrogance comes with age I suppose. I understand physics perfectly well, thank you very much.

See, to me it appears as though you are losing the debate - as all you have done is called what I posted rubbish. But you have nothing to 'counter' the rubbish besides your opinion.

I have stated that self-directed neuro-plasticity is the phenomenon where conscious will has an effect on physical structures within the brain - and backed it up with papers discussing quantum mechanics as the possible mechanism. The phenomenon exists whether QM is involved or not... but it would be naive to suggest that it isn't - because everything arises from below the planck scale.

Call atoms probability wave functions, cymatical fluid dynamics from zero point vibration, or as Korg would rather - call them knots from loop quantum gravity.

Same difference they are all on similar grounds - we just have to reconcile them with each other and come up with a new single model that encompasses and explains them all.


Matter which we perceive is merely nothing but a great concentration of energy in very small regions. We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense. . . . There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and matter for the field is the only reality. -Einstein



As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
-Max Planck



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.
-Max Planck




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join