Consciousness is a Quantum Entity

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by sirnex
Yet you would sit there and state that an advanced AI would not be conscious despite passing all consciousness tests, having experiences, acting upon those experience and claiming itself to be conscious.

Why?

I didn't say it wouldn't be conscious.

I said you can't know if it is.

You can't observe "having experiences".

No, you said it doesn't mean it does, not that you can't know if it is.

So, we can't observe ourselves having experiences?

That is the only thing we can observe.

So my point is that we can never know if any consciousness exists beyond our own.

Then you are not conscious. You can't prove to me you are.

reply to post by sirnex

Taking personal experience as evidence or proof of anything requires one to accept every single deity (AS AN EXAMPLE) is real and exists and is the truth as per everyone who claims personal experience towards this validation. This is why science doesn't work on the honor system and just take peoples word for their claims. I don't care if you claim you have telekinetic powers. Prove you do. Let's set up a study in which there is no possible chance of you having any physical contact with the objects and then see if you can move them. (AGAIN AN EXAMPLE). Yet studies like this have been done and every claimant was discovered to be a hoax and false.

In no way was I suggesting that science should become unscientific or that it should abandon the scientific method altogether. These are only assumptions on your part which are not substantiated by my posts.

The science of mathematics focuses on the inner domain of experience. Mathematical propositions are considered valid if they are logically coherent; they are not discarded by failing to have counterparts or "evidence" in physical reality. There is no logical reason why other inner experiences should be excluded from scientific verification if common rules and restrictions are defined and peer-reviewed by those most adept at the specific fields of inner experience.

Your tangent on telekinesis has no relevance to my post on a more balanced and integrated science, but as you raise it, I will say that any evidence for the existence of telekineses would point to a stronger relationship between mind and matter than accepted by the monist materialist position. Other than that, it is not what I meant by the inner domain of experience, because here you would have an obvious outer effect.

reply to post by sirnex


The general scientific community has an air of arrogance. If they did not think of it then it can not possibly be real............unless of course a few jump on the bandwagon and there is no real alternate theory, lets say for example "the big bang theory".

You see it is all about what they can perceive to be the only answer and more than likely the incorrect one.
There are some brilliant young thinkers out there, granted, but the general scientific community treats them with contempt..............the come back in a few years when you know some stuff kinda attitude.

There are a lot of scientific studies that actually have proof yet they do not make it into main stream thought, I will place a link to some such studies below.

Society for Scientific Exploration

reply to post by CouncilOfNine

The general scientific community has an air of arrogance. If they did not think of it then it can not possibly be real............unless of course a few jump on the bandwagon and there is no real alternate theory, lets say for example "the big bang theory".

Ermm...there are scientific alternatives to the big bang theory.

There are a lot of scientific studies that actually have proof yet they do not make it into main stream thought, I will place a link to some such studies below.

If those claims had real proof "mainstream" science would be all over them.

Tell me, why is it that when "mainstream" (hate that term) science looks into these claims they end up being hoaxes or false, but when these fringe studies look into it they claim evidence and proof? Are you going to claim that every single "mainstream" scientist is in on some big conspiracy? Past, current and future? Every child learning to become a "mainstream" scientist does it with the sole intention of keeping this fringe crap a big secret from us stupid sheep? Is this some secret oath they take that only you and the fringtards know about?

reply to post by mysticnoon

In no way was I suggesting that science should become unscientific or that it should abandon the scientific method altogether. These are only assumptions on your part which are not substantiated by my posts.

I'm just saying when the scientific method is applied to these claims they turn out false.

The science of mathematics focuses on the inner domain of experience. Mathematical propositions are considered valid if they are logically coherent; they are not discarded by failing to have counterparts or "evidence" in physical reality. There is no logical reason why other inner experiences should be excluded from scientific verification if common rules and restrictions are defined and peer-reviewed by those most adept at the specific fields of inner experience.

Theoretical physics/mathematics has nothing to do with inner personal experiences, nothing at all. Personal experiences are excluded for if they were not then we would have to start worshiping every single deity because some moron had a personal experience that their deity existed. Some personal validation. If we use the honor system alone in place of the scientific method, we would be a very confused race making no progress at all.

Your tangent on telekinesis has no relevance to my post on a more balanced and integrated science, but as you raise it, I will say that any evidence for the existence of telekineses would point to a stronger relationship between mind and matter than accepted by the monist materialist position. Other than that, it is not what I meant by the inner domain of experience, because here you would have an obvious outer effect.

You're right, it would show a relationship and to date no such relationship has been scientifically proven. Everyone studied turned out to be a damn fraud, showing that no such relationship exists at all other than the desire to sell books and dvds to make a living.

reply to post by sirnex

Theoretical physics/mathematics has nothing to do with inner personal experiences, nothing at all.

Again, you are misquoting me. I referred to mathematics as belonging to the inner domain of experience, which indeed it is. Mathematics is all about logic and set theory, and so forth, and those are internal thought processes, not an observation of something external. Some scientists even maintain that theoretical mathematics cannot be called a science because of its non-reliance on external observation.

Albert Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

[and]

Many philosophers believe that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable, and thus not a science according to the definition of Karl Popper.

Mathematics

Personal experiences are excluded for if they were not then we would have to start worshiping every single deity because some moron had a personal experience that their deity existed. Some personal validation. If we use the honor system alone in place of the scientific method, we would be a very confused race making no progress at all.

Who said anything about an honor system? These are your ideas, not mine.

I am all for rigorous examination of evidence, be it internal or external, before any solid theory is presented to a scientific community. Where does this "worshipping every single deity" notion arise? I am sure the ideas I have been presenting here have not suggested or logically implied that this would be a possible result.

reply to post by mysticnoon

not an observation of something external.

I'm going to disagree with you here and enjoy my e=mc2 and many other equations.

Who said anything about an honor system? These are your ideas, not mine.

I am all for rigorous examination of evidence, be it internal or external, before any solid theory is presented to a scientific community. Where does this "worshipping every single deity" notion arise? I am sure the ideas I have been presenting here have not suggested or logically implied that this would be a possible result.

You stated there was no reason why inner personal experience should be excluded, I mentioned one reason why it should be. Or at least one reason why it is. The archeological and historical research into just that one reason alone invalidates everyone's personal experiences for that one particular reason. Again, that's just one example of why science doesn't play with personal experience claims. It isn't science, it's hearsay.

reply to post by sirnex

Again, that's just one example of why science doesn't play with personal experience claims.

I do follow what you are trying to say, but you do seem inordinately focused on religious claims. There has been a lot of scientific research into the study of the mind, what it is, how it functions, and so forth, and these studies definitely require the input of personal experience. The type of science of inner domains that I am suggesting differs little in the scientific process, but only in the context and the type of questioning.

Just as a small example, research has shown that mindfulness meditation can effect a change in brain structure in a mere eight weeks.

Link

There is so much further science could delve into these kind of inner dimensions, though not restricting it to observable correlations on the human body, but also finding answers on the nature of consciousness and the meta-physical realities.

reply to post by sirnex

Ermm...there are scientific alternatives to the big bang theory.

Yes but most of them are a derivative of the big bang theory.

One theory seems to call for enormous numbers of small bangs . . . all essentially simultaneous, close together, and nearly identical.

This suggestion avoids the fatal weakness of the space expansion version of the Big Bang, at the expense of introducing many other problems, such as the question as to how the explosions are synchronised, the exacerbation of the isotropy problem, etc. Consequently, the little bang hypothesis has received little attention so far.

The Steady State theory.

In this theory the expansion is a pure assumption. No mechanism for accomplishing it is provided.
The theory requires the continuous creation of matter, which conflicts with the conservation laws.

When astronomers express dissatisfaction with both the Big Bang and the Steady State concepts of the universe, they are in trouble, because it is hard to imagine radical alternatives.

The only Theory that makes any sense to me is The Universe Of Motion

You really do like to twist and bend what people post.

Tell me, why is it that when "mainstream" (hate that term) science looks into these claims they end up being hoaxes or false, but when these fringe studies look into it they claim evidence and proof? Are you going to claim that every single "mainstream" scientist is in on some big conspiracy? Past, current and future? Every child learning to become a "mainstream" scientist does it with the sole intention of keeping this fringe crap a big secret from us stupid sheep? Is this some secret oath they take that only you and the fringtards know about?

I have been over this before and don't want to keep repeating myself. Suffice to say, only when you broaden your view will you get what I am saying.

I know that would be impossible because you keep going round and round in circles, continually chasing your tail.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
The problem with science is that it starts with a materialistic assumption. This assumption is not based on anything but their personal belief system but sadly it's the rule in much of science.

So every immaterial aspect of our reality is just a byproduct of matter. So things like consciousness, information, non locality all stem from the material. To many people this is just an absolute truth because it's something they believe in. They can never ask the question, did the immaterial aspects of our universe give rise to the material. This is a point that's just as valid as their materialist assumption but if you just ask the questiion and take an idealist point of view then you're just listening tp pseudoscience.

This is truly a sad state of affairs because there's no basis to make the assumption that everything has to emerge from the material. The evidence actually points to the contrary.

For instance, we know matter breaks down at Plancks Constant. Well, information doesn't. It just goes from Classical bits to qubits. So if there's no evidence that the material exists beyond Plancks Constant but there's evidence that the immaterial still exists, how can we assume that the immaterial aspects of reality emerged from the material?

This is how they came up with Parallel Universes. In order to explain the fine tuning of the universe and things like Superposition, they said there has to be a material universe for every probable state of matter. Again, this is just another way to push materialism without a shred of evidence.

You can easily say that superposition and probability inherent in quantum mechanics is evidence of the Conscious Universe instead of a bunch of material universes. These universes could just be informational constructs of the conscious mind of the universe.

We operate in the same manner as the Consciousness of the universe. Our Conscious and Unconscious decisions are governed by probability. Take the simplest thing. Where will you go to lunch? Burger King, Taco Bell or Subway? This is just Classical Consciousness doing the same thing as Quantum Consciousness just like a Classical bit and a qubit.

So there's more evidence that the immaterial exists on a quantum level and there's ZERO evidence that the material exists on a quantum level yet people still start with the assumption that everything had to emerge from the material.

Hi Matrix Rising,

S&F! What a relief, thank you for expressing your thoughts on this matter. Because of this post I have now have a new-found outlook on my reality. I live in a "Quantumverse". I have never heard it put that way and I feel privileged t to have been in the right place at the right time to have had the honor of reading your post.

So I've been studying up on "Virtual Reality" and especially with this PDF 'The emergence of the physical world from information processing...

A virtual reality is a world created entirely by information processing, where information arises when a value is chosen from an available value set (Shannon & Weaver, 1949) and processing is the transformation of information values. As virtual worlds exist by processing, by definition nothing in them exists independently in or of itself. If the processing stops so does the virtual reality. In contrast, an objective reality simply is, and needs
nothing else to sustain it. These two hypotheses are:

1. The objective reality hypothesis: That our reality is an objective reality that exists in and of itself,
and being self-contained needs nothing beyond itself.

2. The virtual reality hypothesis: That our reality is a virtual reality that only exists by information
processing beyond itself, upon which it depends.

Whatever one’s personal view, these hypotheses are mutually exclusive. An objective world can't be virtual, and a
virtual world can't be objective. Each theory has implications, e.g. if the physical universe is a permanent objective reality, then it has nowhere to come from or go to.

brianwhitworth.com...

Excellent read. And I am more aware of my surroundings now, thanks to you and the virtual reality. than I ever have before in this lifetime. When I was putting some notes together, after spending a long time reading the pdf., I lost internet access. So I decide to take a little catnap. I wake up and find my computer is frozen. So I lost my work cuz I had to reboot. Then, about hour later, I receive a threat that I could be removed from my apartment by a Sheriff.

Yes, they could all be unrelated but maybe not. I take it as I'm too deep inside the rabbit hole but this rabbit whole is a virtual one, not made by a physical world, like the Matrix movie. You're on to something MR and I have a feeling it's suppose to be a secret or a joke or fiction or anything but what's really going on. Oh sure, yes, by all means let's be scientific about this. I have no problem with that at all.

However, at this time my gut tells me that I finally have a solid base in which to build everything else around, on top of, over, under, inside, outside, upon, etc. because...

"Awareness/Consciousness exists and it's the foundation of reality." Matrix Rising

I must go for now, an emergency has come up but I hope to be back to discuss this further.

Life is what you make it,

Toni

reply to post by sirnex


It is a strongly held assumption that the world is solid, was here before you arrived and will be here after you depart. You appear in the world and things happen to you. A stranger in a strange land. Living under this assumption makes life feel hard and causes suffering. I must struggle to survive in the big bad world.
There is no big bad world, all there is, is this - what ever is happening, right now.
You seem to think that a personal experience implies someone forcing their belief system on you (a deity).
There is nothing but the subject, subjective could be seen as personal experience.

The whole point is, there is no 'inner personal' experience separate to 'outer' experience.
There is experience.
The world appears in me as me. Looking from where i am seeing from it all appears at once.
There is no separate me and a separate world.
This imagined separation happens only in the human mind.

It happens because we are 'clever'.
'Clever', is like cleaver, to cut things up. Human mind chops the whole up into pieces so it can understand it.
The mind may well have chopped the universe into little bits, but it is still only one.
It is the mind that is fragmented.

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Jezus
That is the only thing we can observe.

So my point is that we can never know if any consciousness exists beyond our own.

Then you are not conscious. You can't prove to me you are.

One of the fundamental aspects of consciousness is that you can never prove it scientifically exists outside of your own.

It cannot be proven scientifically because it is abstract but you can still use logic.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
The whole point is, there is no 'inner personal' experience separate to 'outer' experience.

This is more true than most people can ever comprehend,

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
You seem to think that a personal experience implies someone forcing their belief system on you (a deity).

This is true to a certain degree.

However, more than forcing a belief system it is forcing a reality system.

reply to post by Jezus


Reality is hard, well impossible, to see using someone elses eyes.
It seems that it is impossible for us to force reality on to sinex. It is something that does seem very hard for most to see, however obvious it is.
However, i suppose there is no one else, so it is all for my own enjoyment anyway.
It is weird though.

Apparently the universe is...a troll...a troll we can't stop feeding and that can't stop trolling. ^^

Our grasp of reality is confined by our human limited perception of reality, so we never really describe reality, but what we think is reality. The Double-slit experiment is a perfect example of the universe playing games lol...as soon as we observe matter it acts " normal ", as soon as we don't the image it holds up to us breaks down into it's real form.

Kinda like this:

reply to post by dude69


But reality can be known. It is seen and known directly and intimately until you try to describe it.
This is the problem, reality is.
Reality is not able to be put in a box with a label, any label.
Labels are only stickers that separate.
Reality is inseparable.
One lump.
Any description is only part of the whole, which leads to untruth. Unless it is the whole truth it is only a story.
This moment and you are inseparable, this is the truth.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Reality is your 5 senses interpreting vibrations and waves and painting a picture in your mind. This vibration is all connected yes. But my 2 cents are that reality defines you, you don't define reality. Or you do, but that's just what you think reality is and what your thought up reality mirrors.

reply to post by mysticnoon

I do follow what you are trying to say, but you do seem inordinately focused on religious claims. There has been a lot of scientific research into the study of the mind, what it is, how it functions, and so forth, and these studies definitely require the input of personal experience. The type of science of inner domains that I am suggesting differs little in the scientific process, but only in the context and the type of questioning.

It's just one example of personal experience. I mean, if you would like I can bring up other examples that are known to be untrue, scientifically.

Just as a small example, research has shown that mindfulness meditation can effect a change in brain structure in a mere eight weeks.

Yes, I'm aware of that and I do meditate from time to time myself. Yet even this report dispels the many claims that mediation expands your consciousness. Meditation is a great tool to relieve stress, what it does not do is expand awareness or induce some cosmic metaphysical enlightenment, nor does it cause one to ascend into higher planes of vibratory ethereal existence or any other book and dvd claims.

There is so much further science could delve into these kind of inner dimensions, though not restricting it to observable correlations on the human body, but also finding answers on the nature of consciousness and the meta-physical realities.

The problem here is that the metaphysical approach, practiced for thousands of years now has literally achieved no new insights other than empty claims. The physical approach has taught us many new things and has progressed our understanding greatly. Lack of all answers doesn't mean the metaphysical must inherently have some truth to it. It hasn't provided any tangible answers ever, not once.

reply to post by CouncilOfNine

Yes but most of them are a derivative of the big bang theory.

Not all of them are. The point was, you said there were no alternatives, that was simply untrue. That's all.

You really do like to twist and bend what people post.

How is me pointing out a false claim bending your post?

I have been over this before and don't want to keep repeating myself. Suffice to say, only when you broaden your view will you get what I am saying.

I'm just trying to understand your mindset here in regards to this "mainstream science" terminology. Do you think that when they study (and they most certainly do) these claims that they falsely claim the results show nothing but people perpetrating a hoax or having no such evidence for whatever they are claiming? Do you really think every person going into science does so with the intention of claiming that the supernatural metaphysical stuff is false and purposefully fudges all results to keep it that way and our only redemption into these claims comes from book and dvd sellers?

I know that would be impossible because you keep going round and round in circles, continually chasing your tail.

Whoa hey... I'm not the one pulling a god of the gaps argument and claiming that because science doesn't currently have a full understanding that it means the metaphysical answer has to be true.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

You seem to think that a personal experience implies someone forcing their belief system on you (a deity).

Not at all. I simply dismiss personal experience claims as validation of anything including my own. If it can't be proven to others to be true, then most likely it isn't true.

The whole point is, there is no 'inner personal' experience separate to 'outer' experience.
There is experience.
The world appears in me as me. Looking from where i am seeing from it all appears at once.
There is no separate me and a separate world.
This imagined separation happens only in the human mind.

It happens because we are 'clever'.
'Clever', is like cleaver, to cut things up. Human mind chops the whole up into pieces so it can understand it.
The mind may well have chopped the universe into little bits, but it is still only one.
It is the mind that is fragmented.

Empty claim.

reply to post by Jezus

One of the fundamental aspects of consciousness is that you can never prove it scientifically exists outside of your own.

It cannot be proven scientifically because it is abstract but you can still use logic.

If it can't be proven then how can it be proven? How can one prove to themselves they are conscious and not under the illusion of consciousness?

reply to post by Antoniastar


Thanks for your post and thanks for the PDF link. It looks like a very interesting article.

Originally posted by sirnex
If it can't be proven then how can it be proven? How can one prove to themselves they are conscious and not under the illusion of consciousness?

The illusion of consciousness is a contradiction in itself.

You must be conscious to experience illusion...