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.

 

Cranks and Physics

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf



A newborn child who has never fallen before and posses neither a rational mind nor any beliefs will instinctively flinch if you were to move it in a way that it seems to be falling. The same I would assume goes for almost every animal.
 


Ask these kids.



Motion is causing the flinch. As the child would probably flinch moving upward at high speed or sudden jerk. But children will crawl off balconies, or in my case I went down the stairs. (Survived of course)

If children had some inherent warning signal, the manufacturers of baby safety gates would go out of business overnight....

edit on 3-2-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Motion is causing the flinch. As the child would probably flinch moving upward at high speed or sudden jerk. But children will crawl off balconies, or in my case I went down the stairs. (Survived of course)



Motion is making them flinch......downwards motion. The human body has a lot of pre-programmed instincts. If someone moves ones hands quickly into the face of an infant it will instinctively shut its eyes. If an infant falls toward the ground then it will instinctively put its arms out in front of it. If a child loses balance or is dropped in a way that it cannot actually see the ground coming towards it such as in your vid, it will put out its hands to try and restore the balance. You can classify all of these as 'flinches' if you want but they are all different dependant on the specific circumstance.

None of these are learned. None of these are rationalised. It is pre-programmed instinct. And I can guarantee any falling will be accompanied by a feeling you could classify as fear. Now if that infant were to continuously be dropped or thrown or to fall without any ill effect they will probably start finding it quite funny, as every father of a newborn has found out.


If children had some inherent warning signal, the manufacturers of baby safety gates would go out of business overnight....


Knowing what makes you fall and being scared while falling are two separate things. Knowing that to crawl off the stairs or over a steep edge will lead to falling and usually a lot of pain is definitely learned behaviour. But the fear and the instinctual reaction while falling are programmed into the brain right from the start.



edit on 3/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
The fear of falling comes from neither a rational mind (although it is rational) nor is it some animalistic belief which got passed on through time as in learned behaviour. It is a deep rooted instinct programmed into the brain just like the recognition of a face.
What is your source for that claim?

Here's a summary written by someone who has looked at some research on this. I don't claim it's authoritative however I looked at some of the authoritative sources, and this summary seems to accurately reflect the sources I looked at. There are sources listed if you care to check them out.

serendip.brynmawr.edu...

Research being done at the Infant Studies Center at Berkeley has found that it is not as simple as pre and post-crawling, but that there is a delay of a few weeks between the time babies start to crawl and when they show a fear of heights. This supports the fact that it is experience crawling, not simply an immediate side effect of development at this stage that causes the fear to emerge. This also fits with anecdotal evidence of babies crawling off the edge of beds or changing tables or even down the stairs when no one is watching (3).

However, one study, which is in the minority, goes against the experience hypothesis. Richards & Rader (1991) found that it was age of crawling onset, not crawling experience, that predicted behavior on the visual cliff (4). Contrary to what would be expected, those babies with an earlier crawling-onset age (hence more crawling experience at the time of testing) performed the worst—that is, did not avoided the drop-off as much as later crawling-onset babies. Testing age did not predict performance. These researchers explained their finding by saying that early crawling onset "during the tactile phase of infancy interferes with later visual control of locomotion" (4). These findings have not been supported but they do raise a red flag at assuming experience leads to more of a fear of heights.

Regardless of whether crawling experience or age of crawling onset has more of an effect on fear of heights, all of this evidence shows that the fear is not completely innate in humans—that we have to either grow into or learn some of what we think of as our "instincts."
My interpretation is that it's not really clear from this research that your claim is true that "It is a deep rooted instinct programmed into the brain"; it sounds to me like we aren't really sure about that, or that even if that's a factor, it's probably not the only factor influencing the fear of heights behavior.

That author states (and I agree) that all humans, even those who are born full term at 9 months, are apparently "premature" relative to other animals, meaning in a sense the "fetus" essentially has to continue developing outside the womb, which makes it a little trickier to determine what is and is not instinctual in human babies. If the human fetus were to continue developing in the womb to the same level of development as other animals display at birth, in capability of locomotion, and performance in the fear of heights tests, etc, the child would be too large to pass through the birth canal. This it would seem is why in some sense we are all born as "preemies" relative to most other mammals, or even birds. And this may complicate the determination of what is instinctual in babies.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hey Arbitrageur,

I'm not so much talking about a fear of heights but more the fear felt in the actual act of falling. I would actually assume that the fear of heights is a learned instinct learnt due to the numerous (but hopefully minor) falls that infants take even before they can crawl, although I've never actually looked closely into this.

What I'm talking about is what's known as the Moro Reflex


This reflex is a response to a sudden loss of support, when the infant feels like it is falling. It is believed to be the only unlearned fear in human newborns. The primary significance of this reflex is in evaluating integration of the central nervous system (CNS), and it involves 3 distinct components:

1. spreading out the arms (abduction)
2. unspreading the arms (adduction)
3. crying (usually)


In fact the abscence of this instinct is considered to be an abnormality and needs to be looked into.



edit on 3/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


I see...thanks for providing the source and the clarification. It's interesting that reflex disappears as the child gets older...I learned something.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


I see...thanks for providing the source and the clarification. It's interesting that reflex disappears as the child gets older...I learned something.


No worries
, I would argue that the fear aspect stays with you thoughout your entire life, minus the wild flailing present in newborns. Consider also if anyone loses balance they will still automatically put out their arms for balance. However I will admit I haven't looked for a source for this having only remembered this vaguely from the one semester I mistakenly decided to study pyschology. They talked about two universal fears all humans share and the fear of falling is the only one I can remember...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


can you explain this moro effect, i just cant make sense of the wikipedia link.
is it fear of falling?
how did they get to this conclusion?
spreading arms is more like getting ready to fall, no?
edit on 3-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

also is an instinct really a fear?
I don't think so, am I wrong?
edit on 3-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


don't bother even speaking with these guys, It is an obvious feature of the double slit experiment and of quantum physics in general that CONSCIOUSNESS is the base unit of all phenomenon, and matter pivots on the function of consciousness, not the other way around.

this is called "fringe science" and "psuedoscience" to the close-minded members we see in this thread...but you and I both know consciousness' role in physics plays a much bigger role than they give it credit for...let's just let these grumpy kids play by themselves in this thread



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


can you explain this moro effect, i just cant make sense of the wikipedia link.
is it fear of falling?


I only know what i know through having studied psychology for a semester and having fathered two little babies myself so I'm certainly no expert.

But all animals have a set of inbuilt instinctual reflexes. One group of them are known as the startle reflexes (e.g reactions with loud noises, reactions when an object moves close to the eyes) and the moro reflex is one of these.It is a reaction to the sensation of falling which involves the arm movemet in order to try and rebalance, and a slight release of adrenaline similar to the 'fight or flight' instinct. Ever fallen asleep while sitting up and then been startled awake again by the sensation of your head drooping? This is how it works in infants but much more extreme as they do not as yet have full motor control over their movements.


how did they get to this conclusion?


I would guess through observation and logical deduction. Not through mathematical formulae



spreading arms is more like getting ready to fall, no?


Maybe if you're into competitive diving, but it's more a natural reaction to the sensation of falling


also is an instinct really a fear? I don't think so, am I wrong?


Depends how you define fear I guess. Think fight or flight instinct again. I'm sure we've all been in a situation such this at some point in our lives. Did you feel fear?

To bring your question back to Arbitrageur's 'test'; is that feeling of fight or flight combined with the sensation of falling something that anyone would be able to stop in the middle of and have the presences of mind to 'consciously choose the experience of passing safely through the ground's tendencies' while falling off a 20 story building? I would say probably not.




edit on 3/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


THANK YOU!


On a sidenote, you are aware the every year many babies, toddlers fall from incredible height and survive without a scratch.
its interesting.
off course many die, but those who survive, are unexplained. no freak physics or fall break and such.
i will collect these articles from now on, as I demand an explanation!


good to learn something new.
edit on 3-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


don't bother even speaking with these guys, It is an obvious feature of the double slit experiment and of quantum physics in general that CONSCIOUSNESS is the base unit of all phenomenon, and matter pivots on the function of consciousness, not the other way around.

this is called "fringe science" and "psuedoscience" to the close-minded members we see in this thread...but you and I both know consciousness' role in physics plays a much bigger role than they give it credit for...let's just let these grumpy kids play by themselves in this thread


I know what your saying. But its been a little slow at work, and I'm kinda enjoying the fact that none of them have actually been able to show that anything I've said is incorrect. That plus the fact that their arguments are (mainly) unsourced opinions and generalizations only really serves to reinforce my point. Plus I've actually always admired Astyanax's methodical dismantling of any Creationist related post, and Arbitrageur has always been very helpful in answering all of my stupid questions and overal seems like a very nice guy (gal?). If I didn't expect things to soon 'busy' up I would consider taking this to the Debate Forum.

I myself have always been pretty logically grounded but I've had enough experiences to know for a fact that there are things out there which cannot (yet) be measured nor perceived by the 5 senses which themselves are merely tools with limitations.

Sometimes enough stuff happens that you reach a point that where it becomes more logical to assume there is far more to this universe than that which mainstream science contains within its current body of knowledge.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


THANK YOU!


On a sidenote, you are aware the every year many babies, toddlers fall from incredible height and survive without a scratch.
its interesting.
off course many die, but those who survive, are unexplained. no freak physics or fall break and such.
i will collect these articles from now on, as I demand an explanation!


good to learn something new.
edit on 3-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


Soft baby bones maybe, angels perhaps?
Who knows...

I'd like to see how they'd design a repeatable experiment to figure that one out and what kind of maths would be required to make it work.







edit on 3/2/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


don't bother even speaking with these guys, It is an obvious feature of the double slit experiment and of quantum physics in general that CONSCIOUSNESS is the base unit of all phenomenon, and matter pivots on the function of consciousness, not the other way around.

this is called "fringe science" and "psuedoscience" to the close-minded members we see in this thread...but you and I both know consciousness' role in physics plays a much bigger role than they give it credit for...let's just let these grumpy kids play by themselves in this thread


An alternate view that is totally in agreement between observed experiments and does not require a "spooky connection" between our conscious minds and reality, is that reality shapes our consciousness and not the other way around.

We are totally unable to be conscious of something that does not exist.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by metalshredmetal
 


It is an obvious feature of the double slit experiment and of quantum physics in general that CONSCIOUSNESS is the base unit of all phenomenon, and matter pivots on the function of consciousness, not the other way around.

Obvious, eh?

Then it should be fairly easy to explain, even to 'these guys'.

So go on, then. Explain it. I challenge you.

Some people think physics is a faith-based topic.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by metalshredmetal
 


So far no one has been able to properly define quantum consciousness. People like Fred Alan Wolf have clearly decided that money is greater than scientific integrity, while others simply don't understand the physics they are trying to incorporate into consciousness. I say this because not a single one properly defines the observer effect, which is a lynch pin of their entire theories. The only ones I have seen that have presented semi-legitimate theories are Henry Stapp, Roger Penrose, and Stuart Hameroff. But I'm sure that each of them would be willing to admit that we are nowhere near actually proving their theories.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
don't bother even speaking with these guys, It is an obvious feature of the double slit experiment and of quantum physics in general that CONSCIOUSNESS is the base unit of all phenomenon
That's what the movie "What the Bleep..." would have us believe, but if this is so, it certainly has never been proven. And it's not an obvious feature of the double slit experiment which is why I made a thread to illustrate another example of the

Observer Effect

In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.
The fact that the tire pressure is altered by observing the air pressure doesn't mean the tire has consciousness, so I don't understand why people assume this is so unless they are brainwashed by the "What the Bleep..." movie. In my thread I give another example of the observer effect I discovered in my kitchen, which again has no implications of consciousness.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
you guys can poke fun and call names all you'd like. it doesn't make you one bit credible.

all these highly credible and successful PhDs > completely anonymous forum member somewhere

wiki quantum consciousness/mind

Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (23 April 1858 – 4 October 1947) was one of the most important German physicists of the late 19th and early 20th century, winning the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918; he is considered to be the founder of quantum theory.

max planck quote:

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.

As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

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


here's a very short list of scientists associated w/ "quantum consciousness":

David Joseph Bohm FRS[1] (20 December 1917 – 27 October 1992) was an American-born British quantum physicist who contributed to theoretical physics, philosophy, neuropsychology, and the Manhattan Project. Bohm attended Pennsylvania State College (now The Pennsylvania State University), graduating in 1939, then attended the California Institute of Technology for a year, and then transferred to the theoretical physics group directed by Robert Oppenheimer at the University of California, Berkeley, where he eventually obtained his doctorate degree.

Henry Stapp received his PhD in particle physics at the University of California, Berkeley, under the supervision of Nobel Laureates Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain. While there, he was a member of the Berkeley Fundamental Fysiks Group, founded in May 1975 by Elizabeth Rauscher and George Weissmann, which met weekly to discuss philosophy and quantum physics.[2]

Stapp has view of quantum consciousness which I personally agree with very much:

Stapp favours the idea that quantum waves collapse only when they interact with consciousness. He argues that quantum waves collapse when intelligent brains select one among the alternative quantum possibilities as a basis for future action.[5]


Gustav Bernroider is an Austrian biologist who has made contributions in the fields of neurobiology, philosophy, and quantum mind.[1]Bernroider is currently Associate Professor for Neurobiology, at the University of Salzburg in Austria. He leads a research lab for neurosignaling and neurodynamicsneural correlates of higher level brain functions. Gustav Bernroider has advanced a theory of consciousness based on the proposition that the entangled ion states arise in the voltage-gated ion channels of the membranes of neurons. Bernroider's theory was principally developed in a 2005 paper co-authored with the mathematician Sisir Roy.

David Chalmers was born and raised in Australia, and since 2004 has been Professor of Philosophy, Director of the Centre for Consciousness, and an ARC Federation Fellow at the Australian National University. From an early age, he excelled at mathematics, eventually completing his undergraduate education at the University of Adelaide with a Bachelor's degree in mathematics and computer science. He then briefly studied at Lincoln College at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar before studying for his PhD at Indiana University Bloomington under Douglas Hofstadter. He was a postdoctoral fellow in the Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology program directed by Andy Clark at Washington University in St. Louis from 1993 to 1995, and his first professorship was at UC Santa Cruz, from August 1995 to December 1998. Chalmers was subsequently appointed Professor of Philosophy (1999–2004) and, later, Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies (2002–2004) at the University of Arizona, sponsor of the Toward a Science of Consciousness[2] conference where in 1994 he gave a well-received talk that raised his profile in the cognitive science community.[3]

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1] He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher.

all these highly credible and successful PhDs > completely anonymous forum member somewhere



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by metalshredmetal
 


As I stated before while these men provide more legitimate theories than your average quantum consciousness supporter like Fred Alan Wolf they will also be the first to admit that their theories are nowhere near being proven or even provable at this point in time. Now let me ask you a question. It may seem a little random, but it does have a point. What are your views on the possibility of AI? Is it possible to achieve strong AI?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
you guys can poke fun and call names all you'd like. it doesn't make you one bit credible.

all these highly credible and successful PhDs > completely anonymous forum member somewhere

wiki quantum consciousness/mind

Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (23 April 1858 – 4 October 1947) was one of the most important German physicists of the late 19th and early 20th century, winning the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918; he is considered to be the founder of quantum theory.

max planck quote:

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.

As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)
Planck certainly deserves credit for being the founder of quantum theory. However he didn't even believe his own theory would survive. Here's more about Planck:

www.thefullwiki.org...

Planck expected that wave mechanics would soon render quantum theory—his own child—unnecessary. This was not to be the case, however. Further work only cemented quantum theory, even against his and Einstein's philosophical revulsions.
He was philosophically disgusted by the fact that his own theory proved to be true. And what you quote from him are more philosophical incantations from the same guy who was philosophically revulsed by his own creation. So what does this tell us about the foundations of his philosophical viewpoints?

It tells me that his quantum theory was founded in scientific observations, and that his philosophical viewpoints were not, but in fact contradicted the scientific foundation of his own theory that he fathered.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


i understand what you're saying..and I appreciate your input, but you're trying to convince the wrong person, amigo.

i know what you're opinions are, I know full well what "mainstream" science has to say about ...quantum mechanics.

I have a healthy background in quantum physics and electrodynamics especially, I know what government academia has to say about the "fringe" stuff. and after all my observations I have realized that science simply explains everything up-to the subject of consciousness and all it's capabilities.

as i've said before, i'm of the opinion that consciousness is the base unit of all existence and the universe.

this opinion explains a greater amount of phenomena than materialist-science/government-run-academia/mainstream science, and that's why I like it.
edit on 2/4/12 by metalshredmetal because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join