Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Consciousness is a Quantum Entity

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I come back to the thread and still no evidence to support materialism. Like I said, space, time and the laws of physics breaks down at Planck's Constant. There's ZERO evidence that matter extends into sub planckian scales. There's ZERO evidence that matter exists without space, time and the laws of physics as we know them.

We know that information doesn't break down at Planck scales. Information just goes from classical bits to qubits. So information about classical universes is stored on qubits from big bang to big bang.

What I call the Quantumverse, instead of a multiverse, is a singular universe that stores information about multiple classical universes on qubits at Planck Scales.




posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
It's the difference between Awareness and Consciousness which are essentially the same thing.

On a subatomic level you see Awareness. This is because there isn't a lack of information. Subatomic particles that are entangled can instantly know the position and momentum of it's entangled pair. Consciousness is Awareness on a Classical level. We can't know the position and momentum at the same time so there's a lack of information. This lack of information makes us conscious of "things" and we're under the illusion of separation.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


sorry dont have a whole lot of time to post. And yes i know we have a branch called neuroscience. However, it seems that science is dead set on concsciousness being a materialist phenomenon. But what if it isnt?

And i still like the idea of qubit and tiny pieces of information, a bunch of yesses and now, builds up to reality.

It reminds me slightly of the chaos we see at the plank scale where reality seems to constantly jump.
However, I would have to say, if the universe was digital, I dont think it would use binary, it would be something like hex, which allows you to encode much more information.

And yes it theorizes we may be a simulation, but that doesnt necessarily need to be the case. And also, what exactly is a "simulation". You could construe it many different ways. We get lose meaning with our words I feell!

Great discussion though sirnex



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by HUMBLEONE
 



Consciousness creates reality. When you go to bed, your kitchen dissolves into waves of potential because you have not focused your consciousness on it. (See Biocentrism by Robert Lanza M.D.).


Biocentrism is unscientific and doesn't answer anything new at all. It does nothing more than push the problem backwards. Doesn't explain what reality really is nor does it explain what consciousness really is. It just makes an empty conclusion based upon nothing but pure opinion.

reply to post by EL1A5
 



Perception is reality.

If we percieve something to be reality, is it indeed reality or merely our perception which makes it a reality?


And what would have been reality before humans evolved? We're not special at all, nor do we create reality. Reality creates us.

reply to post by AlphaZero
 



I think you're purposely missing the point that has trying to be made this entire thread. Regardless of whatever is happening when your five senses (or lack of) receive information from the outside world, and regardless of whatever a drug does to your physiology, this is still skipping over the problem of experience. I don't know how to explain in any more detail because it's a totally subjective and self-evident phenomenon.


Basically, you disbelieve the scientific answer on experience. That still will not change the fact that experience is caused by external and internal stimuli before something can even be experienced. Could you experience the roundness of a ball without vision or touch? Does this lack of of you being able to experience the roundness of a ball mean the ball is not round at all for someone who has the ability to sense it's roundness?


You can never know what another person is actually experiencing during any one event or as the result of stimuli. Go ahead and measure hormone levels, brainwaves, and physical symptoms while an artist envisions a piece of artwork solely in their mind, for example; all those measurements will never tell you details of the landscape that is being formed within. Consciousness is subjective. Things have certain qualities to them that are fundamentally impossible to describe with any amount of vocabulary or detailed explanations of hormone or drug interactions on the body.


I remember reading an article a year or so ago where they were able to decode visual signals from the brain, both things actually seen and thing's generated by the brain itself, like words. They've done it with cats and humans from what I remember reading. So, yea, pretty much we can tell what the artist is envisioning and feeling if we hook him up to these machines.


The argument of "no one has ever come back to confirm consciousness lives on" is totally irrelevant. If consciousness was immaterial and non-physical in nature, it obviously wouldn't able to be measured or detected by any of our equipment.


If consciousness creates reality then nothing is material at all and thus negates your argument that it can't be measured or detected, period. Thus, it should be measurable and detectable. Unless the material world really is real and what reality really is.

reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



We know that information doesn't break down at Planck scales. Information just goes from classical bits to qubits. So information about classical universes is stored on qubits from big bang to big bang.


We already went over this, qubits are atoms, physical material atoms.


What I call the Quantumverse, instead of a multiverse, is a singular universe that stores information about multiple classical universes on qubits at Planck Scales.


So, basically it's perfectly fine for you to make wild assumptions without scientific evidence to back those assumptions up with and yet when someone provides sources about the subjects you speak of that do not mention what you conclude from them, it's wrong. So... Matrix is always right in what Matrix wants to believe and the science is wrong if it doesn't agree with Matrix's wild fantastical idealistic magic world.


It's the difference between Awareness and Consciousness which are essentially the same thing.

On a subatomic level you see Awareness. This is because there isn't a lack of information. Subatomic particles that are entangled can instantly know the position and momentum of it's entangled pair. Consciousness is Awareness on a Classical level. We can't know the position and momentum at the same time so there's a lack of information. This lack of information makes us conscious of "things" and we're under the illusion of separation.


Subatomic particles are not "aware", they simply interact.

reply to post by VonDoomen
 



sorry dont have a whole lot of time to post. And yes i know we have a branch called neuroscience. However, it seems that science is dead set on concsciousness being a materialist phenomenon. But what if it isnt?


Well, there have been studies in the past and currently that do explore the what if it wasn't stance. Yet everything we have points to it being a phenomenon of the brain. What would happen when we can upload our minds into computers? What would this mean? How can one upload an immaterial thing like a mind into a material object if it were truly immaterial?


And i still like the idea of qubit and tiny pieces of information, a bunch of yesses and now, builds up to reality.

It reminds me slightly of the chaos we see at the plank scale where reality seems to constantly jump.
However, I would have to say, if the universe was digital, I dont think it would use binary, it would be something like hex, which allows you to encode much more information.

And yes it theorizes we may be a simulation, but that doesnt necessarily need to be the case. And also, what exactly is a "simulation". You could construe it many different ways. We get lose meaning with our words I feell!


A simulated universe doesn't answer anything, it just pushes the problem elsewhere, it's a god did it answer. Qubits require atoms to store information, there is to date no discovered underlying algorithm found in the universe that would lead us to conclude we're a simulation either. In order for qubits to be useful to us, we have to create algorithms and machines to turn those atoms into something useful for computation. This requires a source of energy, machines, operators, programmers. God did it....



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I should probly share with you an experience I had.

when I was younger I experienced an extreme concussion from a good fall. However, I ended up having an EXTREME out of body experience. Some really spooky stuff happened, and I knew things I really shouldnt have.

from that point on, I just knew that the rabbit hole was a little deeper.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by sirnex
 


I should probly share with you an experience I had.

when I was younger I experienced an extreme concussion from a good fall. However, I ended up having an EXTREME out of body experience. Some really spooky stuff happened, and I knew things I really shouldnt have.

from that point on, I just knew that the rabbit hole was a little deeper.




Until such time that OOBE's are conclusively proven to be factual events, I personally do not hold such arguments as valid. Nor do I hold NDE's as valid either. I haven't personally gotten into researching OOBE's in too much depth, but what I do know about NDE's is that there is a scientific explanation and experiments where they can reproduce the experience on perfectly healthy people. Some see God(s), some see heaven, hell, even feelings of being abducted by aliens in some accounts. Also, every report of NDE is based upon cultural and religious beliefs of the person undergoing the experience. A Hindu won't experience the same NDE as a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Navajo Indian. Neither does the experience alone validate a continuation or detachment of consciousness from body. The person never actually dies. I've also had a concussion via a rock to the head, pretty nasty... Blacked out for a good 10 mins, never experienced anything. One second I was standing up, the next I was waking up on the ground. No in between. So I'm sorry if I refuse to take personal experience as validation of anything.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HUMBLEONE
Consciousness creates reality. When you go to bed, your kitchen dissolves into waves of potential because you have not focused your consciousness on it. (See Biocentrism by Robert Lanza M.D.).


Well we have already conclusively proven that consciousness influences reality in a directly physical way.

However, the idea that consciousness creates reality is kind of a different issue.

You should watch the documentary (The Primacy of Consciousness).



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex


I think you're purposely missing the point that has trying to be made this entire thread. Regardless of whatever is happening when your five senses (or lack of) receive information from the outside world, and regardless of whatever a drug does to your physiology, this is still skipping over the problem of experience. I don't know how to explain in any more detail because it's a totally subjective and self-evident phenomenon.


Basically, you disbelieve the scientific answer on experience. That still will not change the fact that experience is caused by external and internal stimuli before something can even be experienced. Could you experience the roundness of a ball without vision or touch? Does this lack of of you being able to experience the roundness of a ball mean the ball is not round at all for someone who has the ability to sense it's roundness?


You can never know what another person is actually experiencing during any one event or as the result of stimuli. Go ahead and measure hormone levels, brainwaves, and physical symptoms while an artist envisions a piece of artwork solely in their mind, for example; all those measurements will never tell you details of the landscape that is being formed within. Consciousness is subjective. Things have certain qualities to them that are fundamentally impossible to describe with any amount of vocabulary or detailed explanations of hormone or drug interactions on the body.


I remember reading an article a year or so ago where they were able to decode visual signals from the brain, both things actually seen and thing's generated by the brain itself, like words. They've done it with cats and humans from what I remember reading. So, yea, pretty much we can tell what the artist is envisioning and feeling if we hook him up to these machines.


The argument of "no one has ever come back to confirm consciousness lives on" is totally irrelevant. If consciousness was immaterial and non-physical in nature, it obviously wouldn't able to be measured or detected by any of our equipment.


If consciousness creates reality then nothing is material at all and thus negates your argument that it can't be measured or detected, period. Thus, it should be measurable and detectable. Unless the material world really is real and what reality really is.


I disagree with the scientific answer of experience because it's not a complete solution. A subjective term like "round" means nothing to someone who's never experienced it. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Experience is primary because all the vocabulary and description in the world won't help you tell someone what the roundness of a ball is like.

I'd like to see that article on decoding brainwaves. I've never seen any evidence of that. I'm fairly sure that you can't tell exactly what a person is thinking based solely on brain scans. How would this work with something more abstract, like music?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Well we have already conclusively proven that consciousness influences reality in a directly physical way.


Quote a scientific article showing and specifying this.

reply to post by AlphaZero
 



I disagree with the scientific answer of experience because it's not a complete solution. A subjective term like "round" means nothing to someone who's never experienced it. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Experience is primary because all the vocabulary and description in the world won't help you tell someone what the roundness of a ball is like.


All I got from that is that it's a language problem, not an experience problem. I don't care if our language, definition, description of a round ball is used to call it a cube or a tree. The object in question will still have only one experiential physical characteristic to it that differentiates it from something of a different shape. Regardless of being able to convey that information to someone else still does not detract from it's physical characteristics. If I can see it's shape, whether I call it round or cube or tree, but a blind person can't experience the same, then what does that mean? He can hold the ball, but can't see it, so he must be in the same reality as I am. The ball must still exist regardless of observation.


I'd like to see that article on decoding brainwaves. I've never seen any evidence of that. I'm fairly sure that you can't tell exactly what a person is thinking based solely on brain scans. How would this work with something more abstract, like music?


Look it up, I'm not here to hold hands.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


What are you talking about? Everyone knows that space, time and the laws of physics break down at Planck's Constant. You even said time breaks down at Planck's Constant. You then said matter still exists at these scales without ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE. When you tried to Google about the subject and you couldn't find anything to support this, you went on one of your rants that led to nowhere.

Again, there's ZERO evidence to support materialism and you haven't provided any evidence to support this notion. People already know that your just bloviating because you don't have any answers but you "believe" in materialism so you spout on with these long, drawn out posts about nothing.

Would you please provide one piece of evidence that says "matter still exists" at sub planck scales when space, time, and the laws of physics as we know them break down at planck's constant. You are the one on here trying to support materialism but you haven't provided any evidence to support it. So please, no long drawn out posts about nothing. If you don't have scientific evidence that shows matter still exists at sub planck scales.

You're the one making the claim that matter still exists at these scales, so present evidence to support your claims and stop bloviating.

Also, where's the evidence that subatomic particles are not aware? Awareness starts with interaction. You said:


Subatomic particles are not "aware", they simply interact.


After they interact, then they are aware of the position of their entangled pair. Whn people start to say they're not aware then their just trying to push their belief system. There isn't one shred of evidence that shows that subatomic particles are not aware.

When I interact with a new book, then I'm aware of that book. When I interact with a new person I just met, then I become aware of the individual. Awareness starts with interaction.

The problem is, you can't say I don't know and this is why your posts are all over the place. How can you prove something isn't aware when it shares the characteristics of Awareness? You can believe that subatomic particles are not aware but that's just your belief system.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus
 



Well we have already conclusively proven that consciousness influences reality in a directly physical way.


Quote a scientific article showing and specifying this.

reply to post by AlphaZero
 



I disagree with the scientific answer of experience because it's not a complete solution. A subjective term like "round" means nothing to someone who's never experienced it. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Experience is primary because all the vocabulary and description in the world won't help you tell someone what the roundness of a ball is like.


All I got from that is that it's a language problem, not an experience problem. I don't care if our language, definition, description of a round ball is used to call it a cube or a tree. The object in question will still have only one experiential physical characteristic to it that differentiates it from something of a different shape. Regardless of being able to convey that information to someone else still does not detract from it's physical characteristics. If I can see it's shape, whether I call it round or cube or tree, but a blind person can't experience the same, then what does that mean? He can hold the ball, but can't see it, so he must be in the same reality as I am. The ball must still exist regardless of observation.


I'd like to see that article on decoding brainwaves. I've never seen any evidence of that. I'm fairly sure that you can't tell exactly what a person is thinking based solely on brain scans. How would this work with something more abstract, like music?


Look it up, I'm not here to hold hands.


All I can say is research the various philosophies of mind. We must agree to disagree because I don't have much else to say. The Wikipedia article on qualia is much more precise than I can be.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are both materialist and idealist/dualist views on there. I'm not going to force you into "converting".

I don't know why you're telling me to look up the article (which I did try to do, actually). You're the one making the claims, so it's up to you to provide the evidence.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



What are you talking about? Everyone knows that space, time and the laws of physics break down at Planck's Constant. You even said time breaks down at Planck's Constant.


Yes, time breaks down because time as a fourth dimension of temporal travel does not exist in actuality. Physicist are just now starting to understand this and confirm this.


You then said matter still exists at these scales without ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE.


You keep making empty statements about your assumptions and opinions of reality. I've already posted a source stating that no experiments conducted nor planned can reach below this level.


When you tried to Google about the subject and you couldn't find anything to support this, you went on one of your rants that led to nowhere.


No, you went off on a rant without providing a single source for your assumptions whilst accusing me of providing no sources at all. You still have not yet provided a single source for your assumptions.


Again, there's ZERO evidence to support materialism and you haven't provided any evidence to support this notion. People already know that your just bloviating because you don't have any answers but you "believe" in materialism so you spout on with these long, drawn out posts about nothing.


I've been providing sources.


Would you please provide one piece of evidence that says "matter still exists" at sub planck scales when space, time, and the laws of physics as we know them break down at planck's constant.


Please provide a source that says this, again no experiments conducted nor planned can currently test this. So what exactly are you basing this assumption off of besides your rectal cavity?


Also, where's the evidence that subatomic particles are not aware? Awareness starts with interaction. You said:


Are you talking about being consciously aware or just two things bumping into one another? Different concepts.


After they interact, then they are aware of the position of their entangled pair. Whn people start to say they're not aware then their just trying to push their belief system. There isn't one shred of evidence that shows that subatomic particles are not aware.


Do you occasionally have deep meaningful conversations with consciously aware subatomic particles?


When I interact with a new book, then I'm aware of that book. When I interact with a new person I just met, then I become aware of the individual. Awareness starts with interaction.


Right, that's conscious awareness. Different concept.


The problem is, you can't say I don't know and this is why your posts are all over the place. How can you prove something isn't aware when it shares the characteristics of Awareness? You can believe that subatomic particles are not aware but that's just your belief system.


You're a loony, take some meds man.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AlphaZero
 



I don't know why you're telling me to look up the article (which I did try to do, actually). You're the one making the claims, so it's up to you to provide the evidence.


Try, decoding images from brainwaves as your search term. There's plenty of articles out there. It's not a flipping wild claim, it's an accepted scientific achievement. Do I need to provide evidence as well if I say there's satellites in orbit of our planet? Or that television transmits moving talking images through the air? There's no rhyme or reason that I should have to link mundane scientific achievements when a simple search term provides plenty of articles. I've also tried different ways of looking it up and got results.

Either you didn't look it up or you didn't try hard enough.

I've done the qualia argument before. Same thing.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Just what I thought, more bloviating.

Again, there's ZERO evidence that matter can exist without space, time and the laws of physics as we know them. If you have evidence that matter still exists, then present it. This is the claim you made:


The only thing that breaks down at the plank level is time itself. Matter still exists, but how it FUNCTIONS at that level is entirely different than how it functions at the macroscopic level, like in a solar system


Pure nonsense. You made the claim matter still exists. My job is not to show that matter still exists or it doesn't exists at these levels because you're the one making the claim the MATTER STILL EXISTS.

I said Matter doesn't exist without space, time and the laws of physics as we know them. Where's the evidence that matter still exists when space,and time break down? You're the one trying to support your claim by saying well we don't know. That's just evidence that we don't know not that matter exists as you claimed.

If there's some future evidence that shows matter still exists at these scales, then we will debate it when the discovery is made. Right now, there's ZERO evidence to support your claim that MATTER STILL EXISTS, so there's ZERO evidence to support materialism.

What we do know is that information doesn't break down at these scales, it just goes from classical bits to qubits. This is also why Hawking and others talk about information can escape a black hole but matter cannot. Information about different states of matter are stored on qubits wihch don't break down like space and time at planck's constant.

Again, you made the claim so support the claim with scientific evidence or stop bloviating. I'm not debating a future discovery that's only in your mind. I'm talking about what we know now and there's ZERO evidence to support materialism.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



I said Matter doesn't exist without space, time and the laws of physics as we know them.


Before accusing others of doing something you view as wrong, how about not doing it yourself, you look like a complete imbecile ranting and raving about how the universe is idealistic without ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT ASSUMPTION.

You made that claim, so BACK IT UP!

There is ZERO evidence to support idealism.
edit on 17-4-2011 by sirnex because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


The problem you're facing is that you made a silly statement that matter still exists at these scales without a shred of evidence and you're caught in a catch 22 situation because you can't admit you're wrong. So you keep bloviating without any substance. Sadly, you will never learn anything this way because you're under the illusion that you know everything and even when you're obviously wrong, you bloviate to try to come up with an argument to try and save face.

I basically made the argument that idealism was just as valid as materialism because there's no evidence that matter extends into sub planck scales. Here's what I said in my first post:


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 to pseudoscience.


So again, I said that idealism is just as valid as materialism because there's ZERO evidence that matter extends into sub planck scales.

I then said there's evidence that actually supports the immaterial can extend into sub planck scales because information doesn't break down at Planck's Constant. It just goes from Classical Bits to Qubits.

So the point of my post was to say Idealism is just as valid as materialism and actually there's more evidence that supports idealism over a materialistic interpretation. Many people just ASSUME a materialistic interpretation based on their belief system not any evidence.

You then made this SILLY statement:


The only thing that breaks down at the plank level is time itself. Matter still exists, but how it FUNCTIONS at that level is entirely different than how it functions at the macroscopic level, like in a solar system.


You made the claim the MATTER STILL EXISTS at these scales. The onus is on you to provide scientific evidence to support this claim. Instead of admitting that you made a wrong statement, you began bloviating with these long, draw out posts about nothing.
edit on 17-4-2011 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



I then said there's evidence that actually supports the immaterial can extend into sub planck scales because information doesn't break down at Planck's Constant. It just goes from Classical Bits to Qubits.


What evidence do you have to support this wild assumption of yours? What experiments have been done in regards to information still existing at the sub planck level? Can you provide ANY source for this silly notion of yours?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by AlphaZero
 



I don't know why you're telling me to look up the article (which I did try to do, actually). You're the one making the claims, so it's up to you to provide the evidence.


Try, decoding images from brainwaves as your search term. There's plenty of articles out there. It's not a flipping wild claim, it's an accepted scientific achievement. Do I need to provide evidence as well if I say there's satellites in orbit of our planet? Or that television transmits moving talking images through the air? There's no rhyme or reason that I should have to link mundane scientific achievements when a simple search term provides plenty of articles. I've also tried different ways of looking it up and got results.

Either you didn't look it up or you didn't try hard enough.

I've done the qualia argument before. Same thing.


I found an article on it shortly after posting that. If you think that technology is literally able to read and decode thoughts, I don't think you understood what the limitations were. It requires a clear mathematical model or sensory input and motor function. That's far from the potential complexity of the mind.

And what do you mean you've "done" the qualia argument before? Assuming you agree with materialist philosophers such as Daniel Dennett, you realize that his theories and books are bashed just as much as idealist ones, correct?


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
So the point of my post was to say Idealism is just as valid as materialism and actually there's more evidence that supports idealism over a materialistic interpretation. Many people just ASSUME a materialistic interpretation based on their belief system not any evidence.


No matter how much we try to describe the inherent limitations of materialism, they will be stuck in their beliefs much like dogmatic religious folk.
edit on 17-4-2011 by AlphaZero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
There is ZERO evidence to support idealism.

The irony is seeping out of my computer screen so fast; I cannot control it. So forgive me.

Experience, or idea I suppose, is primary. Matter and energy are inductive inferences derived from experience. The same sort of reasoning that says "The sun will rise tomorrow morning because that's what it always does" underlies all of science.

Now for science it is convenient to use material as a starting point for many types of experiments. It's easy to forget that experience, idea, is still in front of all of this. So of course using this starting point you won't find any evidence! The evidence is right in front of your face, in front of your starting point!

edit on 17-4-2011 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Information.


Originally posted by sirnex
You're a loony, take some meds man.


Why?


Originally posted by sirnex
Look it up, I'm not here to hold hands.






top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join