Is Matter Self Aware?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


Hmmm.... So much for a dead end eh.

I gotta say SO that TraitorKiller seems to have done a very good job at rebutting your arguments and many of your quotes do not appear to counter much of what he has said. Those that do I will reply to.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Why do you think they came up with the Eraser exp.? The only reason is because it proves that the detector is not causing the wave function collapse, and that only leaves consciousness as an answer.

I have read the original article of the Quantum Erasure experiment. I have found nothing that even mentions consciousness. Here is the conclusion of the paper: grad.physics.sunysb.edu...

In as much as our experiment did not allow for the observer to choose the polarization angle in the time period after photon s was detected and before detection of p, our results show that a collapse of the wave function due to detection of photon s does not prohibit one from observing the expected results.

Your interpretation is merely an interpretation—a very improbable one. The fact that the ‘observer’ is a measuring device and thus a machine, does not prove anything to do with consciousness, and it pertains more to the Heisenberg Uncertainty and also the Observer Effect than it does to human consciousness.

For starters as has been pointed out via the Eraser Experiment it is not the machine which interferes with the experiment, nor is it the machine which is doing the observing. It is the person checking the machine which does the observing.

The machine itself can be merely likened to a slightly more complex version of spectacles which allows the ‘short sighted’ scientist to see what happened. If someone you know who wears glasses reads a book, is it the glasses that do the reading or is it the person behind the glasses? The machine is merely a tool just like the eyeball is which in turn allows the mind of the scientist, or in other words his consciousness, to observe the results.

Secondly no you will not see the word consciousness mentioned because that it not the point of the experiment. The point is to test whether a various action (that is the act of observing) causes a various result. We are not testing whether the decision to act (made by the scientist’s mind or ‘consciousness’) affects the experiment. We are merely looking at the action itself.

I would also hazard a guess that the scientist does not want to go through a heap of crap from his fellow peers by mentioning the 'c' word but that is just my opinion.

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."

Again this has been proven incorrect via the eraser experiment. It is completely been shown and verified by peer review that it is has to be a human.

Unfortunately I do not currently have time to read the whole link but there is no reason given in the text which explains why the subjective should not be brought in. You must also keep in mind what it is that is doing the 'registering'. The observer's mind via the equipment used in the experiment.

Critics of the special role of the observer also point out that observers can themselves be observed, leading to paradoxes such as that of Wigner's friend; and that it is not clear how much consciousness is required ("Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?"

It is easy to criticize, much harder to actually offer up an alternative explanation though…

This point also stands for your quote on Quantum Consciousness

The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function.

As far as my knowledge of decoherence goes, these guys are basically arguing that the physical structures of the brain are too large to effect anything on a quantum level.

Now I’m not going to pretend I know much about this but there is growing evidence that Quantum Mechanics may play an important role in cellular biology This research is only in its infancy but I myself would not be willing to state that macroscopic human brain cells are simply too large to have any affect on the quantum level when we know next to nothing about quantum biology.

Also you’ve got to keep in mind at what these experiments seem to point to. That some aspect of consciousness is not totally confined by the human shell. To me this also shows that some of the brains functions may in fact operate on the quantum level and (which as we already know via the fields of quantum superposition and possibly entanglement) are not in anyway held back by ‘space’, such as the space between the observer’s brain and the subatomic wave/particle within the experiment.



So now we have established a number of facts.

1) The act of observation cause a waveform particle to collapse

2) Through the Quantum Easer Experiment it has been shown that the equipment used within the experiment does not in anyway interfere with the results of the experiment

3) The critics of Quantum Consciousness accept these first two points yet do not have any alternate explanation as to why the act of observing such an experiment cause this waveform collapse.

If this discussion is to continue then we have to move past this and start looking at what part of the act of observing this experiment causes this waveform collapse.

I can see no other logical explanation for this other than it is the consciousness of the scientist observing the results of the experiment.

If you do have an alternative theory as to what it is within the act of observing that causes these results, now would be the time to share SubversiveOne.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Great posts.

As far as my knowledge of decoherence goes, these guys are basically arguing that the physical structures of the brain are too large to effect anything on a quantum level.

It is a moot point anyway, because if the observer is the one creating matter, our brain, our whole body is just a construct of the observer too.

Observer being non material consciousness.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller

Great posts.

Likewise

Originally posted by TraitorKiller

As far as my knowledge of decoherence goes, these guys are basically arguing that the physical structures of the brain are too large to effect anything on a quantum level.

It is a moot point anyway, because if the observer is the one creating matter, our brain, our whole body is just a construct of the observer too.

Observer being non material consciousness.

I know. I actually wanted to say something along those lines but then I'd be entering a realm which sounds waaayy too 'new agey' and in discussions like this I like to keep things on a more material level.

Baby steps Traitor, baby steps

reply to post by TraitorKiller

The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function.

The whole point just doesn´t make sense in this discussion.

I did some googling and it seems that they are talking about actual quantum processes in the function of our brain, I don't think it even directly applies to observing reality and these experiments.

reply to post by 1littlewolf

Baby steps Traitor, baby steps

Lol, can't you call me killer, that sounds better than traitor


But I know what you mean, I actually thought the same thing but wth, its just what it is.

And by now I would say the evidence is "out there", and people can decide for themselves what the implications are.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

Great posts.

As far as my knowledge of decoherence goes, these guys are basically arguing that the physical structures of the brain are too large to effect anything on a quantum level.

It is a moot point anyway, because if the observer is the one creating matter, our brain, our whole body is just a construct of the observer too.

Observer being non material consciousness.

Yes it's all one. You are dreaming it.
The dream is what we call matter but the dream cannot be without the dreamer.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Yes, so by dreamer you mean the individual spirit or soul?


Btw, didn't you use to have an avatar? I remember your name with an avatar.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller


Lol, can't you call me killer, that sounds better than traitor

I had a terrier called Killer once and I just can’t imagine you’d be quite as fluffy...

But I know what you mean, I actually thought the same thing but wth, its just what it is.

And by now I would say the evidence is "out there", and people can decide for themselves what the implications are.

The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function.

The whole point just doesn´t make sense in this discussion.

I did some googling and it seems that they are talking about actual quantum processes in the function of our brain, I don't think it even directly applies to observing reality and these experiments.

Yeah I may not have got totally got this one spot on. I do know it also has something to do with the observer phenomenon as it approaches the limits of good old fashioned Newtonian physics. I am operating under severe sleep deprivation at the moment and I'm meant to be awake again in 4 hours Damn you internet!!!

Wiki says

decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges out of a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary.

So I kinda guessed in my explanation that the physical size of the brain structures may be what they’re driving at. Truthfully though it makes my head hurt a little trying to understand the subtle nuances of exactly what argument they’re trying to make but regardless though the points I made still stand.

You’re right though. It doesn’t really make much difference even if were to be totally wrong…

reply to post by 1littlewolf

I had a terrier called Killer once and I just can’t imagine you’d be quite as fluffy...

Lol, no I´m rock hard.

So I kinda guessed in my explanation that the physical size of the brain structures may be what they’re driving at. Truthfully though it makes my head hurt a little trying to understand the subtle nuances of exactly what argument they’re trying to make but regardless though the points I made still stand. You’re right though. It doesn’t really make much difference even if were to be totally wrong…

No it doesn´t and I wasn´t criticising your statements. Just an observation. I´m not sure either.

I am operating under severe sleep deprivation at the moment and I'm meant to be awake again in 4 hours

I know that drill, you get some rest buddy.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller


That is such bull, you act like these quantum results are completely normal and explainable, when noone has an explanation for them, and everybody in the scientific world seems to agree that they are bizarre, except for you Swan, you got it all figured out huh?


How do you explain this? This is normal to you? Why do you think they call it a paradox?

Mate, Einstein spent his life trying to figure this problem out. It was he who pointed out that quantum was absurd because it was predicting entanglement, which violated the Light Speed limit. So far, he was unsuccessful. You seriously think I can outsmart Einstein himself? I didn't invent quantum theory, you know. I just don't know.
Why do you think new theories are created now? Because physicists got a feeling that something's wrong with quantum. It doesn't even predict gravitational events. Something is DEEPLY wrong with it. I don't hold all the answers. I am like you, in search for the truth.

reply to post by 1littlewolf

reply to post by TraitorKiller


BTW, peace and love to you all. We are all searching for the truth.
Maybe science still doesn't know what is at the core of matter.
But our heart knows: it's Love.

Love will be my last word.

Peace to y'all.

reply to post by Traitorkiller

Well done Traitor. There is no way I can prove you wrong. I must end my fruitless attempts. And although none of your facts mention anything to do with consciousness, you can still hold on to your theory knowing it remains unscathed. What is more odd is even though we read the same experiments, we came to different conclusions. Maybe faith has a bigger part to play than we thought?

In the end, all we have is two layman's debating the plausibility of quantum theories, which is comical when we step back and take a look.

I cannot deny that observations of the particles in the double-slit experiment affect the particles' past, as shown by the quantum eraser and the delayed-choice experiments you cited. I just cannot understand how one can assume that human consciousness is the contributing factor.

I can still hold that the act of measuring and not the fact that a conscious observer is the one doing the measuring is a more probable reason for particles to act the way they did in those experiments.

Stephen Hawking on measurement:

According to quantum physics, you cannot “just” observe something. That is, quantum physics recognizes that to make an observation, you must interact with the object you are observing. For instance, to see an object in the traditional sense, we shine a light on it. Shining a light on a pumpkin will of course have little effect on it. But shining even a dim light on a tiny quantum particle—that is, shooting photons at it— does have an appreciable effect, and experiments show that it changes the results of an experiment just the way that quantum physics describes.

Your assertion that measuring devices are an extension of human consciousness, I cannot let go however. I don't know what you base this on, but it is easily proven wrong by holding my ruler up to the sky, closing my eyes and not feeling a damn thing. If I put it on the table in the other room, I can not feel how it feels, or experience what it experiences. Measurement and measuring devices is not an extension of consciousness. It makes no difference to the sun how many fingers Babylonians used to measure time. Whether you measure the length of something in either metric or imperial, does not change the length of that thing. Man drew the lines on a ruler; man created the measuring devices in experiments; we draw the map, not the territory.

Cheers, great discussion.

reply to post by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Hmmm.... So much for a dead end eh.

I gotta say SO that TraitorKiller seems to have done a very good job at rebutting your arguments and many of your quotes do not appear to counter much of what he has said. Those that do I will reply to.

I know, and that is because his theory is unfalsifiable, thats why it remains as pseudoscience. There's nothing I can put in front of him that will prove him wrong. We can never mention the results of a experiment without first measuring and observing those measurements. It's like someone saying when I leave a room and close the door, and there is no one to observe, everything in it disappears and flies to Jupiter, but as soon as I go to check, everything, knowing that it's being observed, has magically materialized back in its proper place. There's no way to prove that that isn't true, even if it flies in the face of common sense. We cannot experiment without an observer. The theory isn't even subject to verification, testing or peer-review. It's unfalsifiable.

So to debate it I must attack the experiment itself, his interpretation or the fact that he has a tendency to deny his own common sense, but I get nowhere closer to debunking his idea. I can show him his interpretation is pseudoscience, nonsensical and pure hopeful mysticism, but as long as it remains unfalsifiable there is no way I can rebuke it.

Either way, I stretched my mind enough to know I don't want anything to do with Quantum Physics.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


You are hopeless, you still refused to adress or even acknowledge the proof that was presented.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

You are hopeless, you still refused to adress or even acknowledge the proof that was presented.

I can call people names to: you are hopeless. You haven't refuted that what you say is irrational and pseudoscience and has little to no backing by actual physicists. I looked at everything you showed, and I remain unconvinced of your argument. I can't prove you wrong, I've already stated that. You also fail to comprehend that you're interpretation is just an interpretation. We looked at the same things and we arrived at different conclusions. Mine based on common sense, yours on hopeful mysticism. Unfalsifiable theories have no place in science.

Look, we can agree to disagree, I'm absolutely fine with that, but if you don't feel like doing it in a civil manner, and you must call me names and insult my intelligence, then be a poor-sport all you want. I don't have time for that.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

I can't prove you wrong, I've already stated that.

The proof is not the fact that in order to know things we have to look first, this is a simple truth that we can all agree on, the proof of consciousness lies in the results we see when we look at the experiments.

Again I am not claiming that the fact that we can't review things that we aren't looking at, is the proof of consciousness affecting particles and quantum results.

The experiments prove that besides the fact that we have to look in the first place to pass judgement, every possble outcome happens when we don't look, matter seems to materialise when we do look, and results that should've happened in the past remain in a state of superposition until a future observation forces them to adapt to what we know. That is the proof.

You see the difference?

The evidence has been spelled out for you, there is something that is causing these results, something is letting information pass between detectors. It is not the equipment. The only thing that connects them is the human. The result ALWAYS adapt to what the human knows at that point, even backwards through time. This is statistically impossible if it was a random result.

We asked you before, if not human consciousness, then what is causing this? You still fail to adress this.

Is it that you just don't recognise the implications or is it a conscious decision to avoid this?

I can't prove you wrong, I've already stated that.

You could, if you had an explanation for the results of these Quantum experiments. If you could tell us what is causing the wave function collapse in these experiments you could prove me wrong.

But there is only one possible answer, it is human consciousness, there is nothing else that could be causing it.

The experiments prove it is not the equipment.

You also fail to comprehend that you're interpretation is just an interpretation.

It is the only possible interpretation, there is no other mechanism to explain these results. You still haven't refuted that.

You haven't refuted that what you say is irrational and pseudoscience and has little to no backing by actual physicists.

Yes I did. The results are factual and scientific and can mean only one thing. We have also established that the scientific community refuses to acknowledge consciousness, yet agrees that the results are bizarre, that the mere existance of Which Path info is making the wave function collapse, that results adapt to what we know, backwards through time, every single time, which would be statistically impossible if it was random chance and that it is not the equipment, and they don't offer an alternate explanation.

Mine based on common sense, yours on hopeful mysticism.

Yet I have presented proof and you keep ignoring it. At this point I believe that it is just too hard for you to grasp. Your mind clearly can not even recognise the implications of the results that are undeniable proof.

What was that line you used, "thinking for yourself"?

Time to take your own medicine boy.

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

reply to post by TraitorKiller

 

BTW, peace and love to you all. We are all searching for the truth.
Maybe science still doesn't know what is at the core of matter.
But our heart knows: it's Love.

Love will be my last word.

Peace to y'all.

I appreciate you reaching out and there is no hard feelings, yet I never really bought that "everything is love" idea.

Everything is everything, love and hate, light and dark.

Funny detail, just as I was reading your post and thinking that, I heard the chorus of this song playing in the background, I had just before, clicked the song cause it was suggested after another YT vid.



Funny how my decision of picking one possible outcome in the future correlated to an event that happened in the past that was unknown to me.

Just gotta love the mad episodes of synchronicity I get, they tell me that I'm on the right path.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

I can still hold that the act of measuring and not the fact that a conscious observer is the one doing the measuring is a more probable reason for particles to act the way they did in those experiments.

It is actually the act of observing the measurement which causes the behaviour seen in the experiment. This is the key. For if the measurement is taken and then deleted it acts as if it was never measured at all. The measurement has to be viewed by some an intelligent entity.

Stephen Hawking on measurement:

According to quantum physics, you cannot “just” observe something. That is, quantum physics recognizes that to make an observation, you must interact with the object you are observing. For instance, to see an object in the traditional sense, we shine a light on it. Shining a light on a pumpkin will of course have little effect on it. But shining even a dim light on a tiny quantum particle—that is, shooting photons at it— does have an appreciable effect, and experiments show that it changes the results of an experiment just the way that quantum physics describes.

And yet there are no photons coming from the observers eyeball, so I fail to see how this statement is in any way relevant

Please understand SO as I mentioned above the only difference at all is whether someone observes the results or not. This is the only difference between with experiment A - the waveform and experiment B – the particle. And it is this very fact which is in the main crux of everything we’ve said that you appear to skirt around and never actually address.

You haven't refuted that what you say is irrational and pseudoscience and has little to no backing by actual physicists.

This is not correct. There are many eminent physicists who do back the consciousness theory. I can dig up a list with credentials if you really want but it will be a pain in the ass so hopefully you can trust me on this one. Those who do not simply do not have any plausible explanation and so continue in sort of a state of suspended disbelief of what they see.

I can see tell your pretty much over this thread, but just purely for my own interest could you please answer these last few questions. If you don’t I will understand but I purely want to see where you are coming from…

… especially as you did in fact mention you are spiritual

Why, in an experiment where it is proven beyond doubt that the act of observation is the one thing that makes a difference is it so improbable, so illogical, that the mind behind the observation is the thing making the difference. We have shown it is not the equipment. This leaves only a few other options which to me seem far less likely, such as some property of the observors eyeball, possibly some electromagnetic signal or pheromone perhaps emitted by the body when the observer see’s something amazing and seemingly inexplicable. I just don’t know. This is why I see consciousness as the most logical answer. I realise that it is impossible to conduct such an experiment and see the results without a human present, or at the very least a human to check the final outcome. But the question is what aspect of this human, what aspect about the act of choosing to observe or not choosing to observe is it that makes the difference.

Is it the choice itself? What is it that makes the choice?

I would be genuinely interested in your take on this specific question.

Finally I’m gonna leave you with two things.

Firstly, I do not believe in mysticism/magick/ however you want to describe it, though sometimes I may describe various phenomena as such if I'n feeling a little whimsical. I have no doubt that one day all of what we've discussed will be given a rational reason as to why it happens in future when we know more. I think in fact that it’s illogical to a certain degree to separate the spiritual world from the material world just because there is no way of testing it at this present point in time. There have been many great theories which have had to wait years, even decades until technology improved to the point where it could be tested. The Higgs Boson is a prime example of this.

Secondly, and this is definitely a little more ‘right brained’, and I don’t really require an answer but it's something which you may wish to ponder. Where in this universe ever has information been proven to precede consciousness. In the human world it is always the other way around. I know your probably gonna point to the entire natural universe, but this cannot be also cannot be proven to have ‘spontaneously’ formed, especially to the degree of complexity and in a way that is so finely tuned that you see around you today (hopefully though you know enough about me now not to confuse me with a religious style Creationist though).

Wishing everyone on this thread all the best.

1littlewolf

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Littlewolf I have to thank you. You are literally the first and the only person I ever had the pleasure to interact with that shares the same level of knowledge and insight in these experiments, and their implications, and shares the same views on them, and is able to properly explain it in writing.

It is very refreshing to see this amount of clarity and articulateness.

Originally posted by swan001
Mate, Einstein spent his life trying to figure this problem out. It was he who pointed out that quantum was absurd because it was predicting entanglement, which violated the Light Speed limit. So far, he was unsuccessful. You seriously think I can outsmart Einstein himself? I didn't invent quantum theory, you know. I just don't know.
Why do you think new theories are created now? Because physicists got a feeling that something's wrong with quantum. It doesn't even predict gravitational events. Something is DEEPLY wrong with it. I don't hold all the answers. I am like you, in search for the truth.

Something you my want to consider…..

Is it quantum physics (which is simply a set of natural phenomena within this universe of ours) that is wrong, or is it the attitude of the majority who study it?

Originally posted by swan001

BTW, peace and love to you all. We are all searching for the truth.
Maybe science still doesn't know what is at the core of matter.
But our heart knows: it's Love.

Love will be my last word.

Peace to y'all.

Peace out bro. Its been epic to say the least. I think we’ve all learnt something here. Also like I said before feel free to email me any geology questions you might have.

reply to post by TraitorKiller

Originally posted by TraitorKiller

Originally posted by swan001

BTW, peace and love to you all. We are all searching for the truth.
Maybe science still doesn't know what is at the core of matter.
But our heart knows: it's Love.

Love will be my last word.

Peace to y'all.

I appreciate you reaching out and there is no hard feelings, yet I never really bought that "everything is love" idea.

Everything is everything, love and hate, light and dark.

Funny detail, just as I was reading your post and thinking that, I heard the chorus of this song playing in the background, I had just before, clicked the song cause it was suggested after another YT vid.

Funny how my decision of picking one possible outcome in the future correlated to an event that happened in the past that was unknown to me.

Just gotta love the mad episodes of synchronicity I get, they tell me that I'm on the right path.

Universal Love….. I buy it.

This also relates to the original topic of this thread so Ralphy may well be interested in this one (He seems to have disappeared from his own thread).

I make a bit of a differentiation between your ‘chocolates and roses’ type love, and the universal kind. The two are kinda related however, but the former is coloured by the programming our brains receives form birth onwards. I actually think it may have something to do with the state of Quantum Entangle all energy/matter was in prior to the big bang. Everything back then was one, was connected. There is no reason why this is not the case today.

Ever heard of the saying ‘we are all one and everything is love’? It is my belief that this ‘love’ is the entanglement, the property which binds everything within the known universe. Feeling this love is merely the quantum aspects of our brains perceiving this connectedness. The synchronicities are (one of) the results of this entanglement, for you can see how synchronicity would merely be the human aspect of consciousness interacting with the greater universe, whereas entanglement is the quantum aspect.

This is why when one is full of love synchronicities appear more frequently. It is also why when one follows ‘beauty’ we also are more likely to encounter synchronicities. For the recognition of beauty is the recognition of this love which in turn binds the universe together. I actually wrote a thread on it here though I didn’t actually mention anything about quantum aspect in the thread itself. Thought folks may get a little confused…

Originally posted by TraitorKiller

Littlewolf I have to thank you. You are literally the first and the only person I ever had the pleasure to interact with that shares the same level of knowledge and insight in these experiments, and their implications, and shares the same views on them, and is able to properly explain it in writing.

It is very refreshing to see this amount of clarity and articulateness.

Oh the pleasure has been all mine. You’ve taught me a lot and its as you said its great to meet someone who actually has a degree of understanding on the matter and shares the same views as me. This thread itself has also allowed me to refine my thought processes on this subject even further, and that is in no small part due to your participation in it. I actually had a little practise a while ago though when this topic came up in the Science Forum. Things got very heavy there…

One of the (very) few skills I actually have is the ability to breakdown complex subjects (as long as I understand them to a degree) and break them down to the simplest form in order to share that knowledge with others.

It's discussions such as this that made me join ATS in the 1st place.

Thank you so much. I reckon together we’d make a pretty epic YouTube Video