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.

 

Biocentrism and the illusion of out there

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


There is no subjects - only objects; for all “subjects” are nothing more than complex objects.




posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

swanne
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


There is no subjects - only objects; for all “subjects” are nothing more than complex objects.


What are complex objects?

Have you ever touched a complex object? You do know that you never actually touch a hard table or soft pillow so how do you know a complex object exists outside of your consciousness deeming it's a complex object?

Give me the evidence that shows a complex object exists outside of your subjective conclusion that it's a complex object.
edit on 31-1-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


Your experience of an object is not an object. This is a reductionist view and it seems your [subjective] opinion on this matter is just that...

But if I'm to understand what you are implying, do you believe that there is no subjective experience then? If so how would you reconcile (using the scientific method) that when I stubbed my toe I experienced a pain and not an itch. Or to what degree, or that I even experienced anything at all? How would you reconcile your experience of the color orange?

edit on 31-1-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

neoholographic
The question I have for you is how can the universe come into being if it didn't know that we would be here to observe it? Experiment after experiment shows that particles behave like a wave or particle based on whether a conscious observer will know which path information and this could occur in what we experience as the future and the past.
I don't think you understand quantum mechanics and I don't think Lanza does either. Here's a quote by a scientist who DOES understand quantum mechanics from the video I posted on page 1 that directly contradicts that claim about a conscious observer:

From Sean Carroll video, at 7m50s:

(observation) is "a little bad way to put it because 'observation' makes it sound like the existence of a conscious observer is somehow important to quantum mechanics and it's completely not.

That's an utterly bogus road to go down.

What an observation is, is simply bringing one system into contact with another."
Going down utterly bogus roads is not science, any claims by Lanza to the contrary notwithstanding. So I agree this is not a science topic but it's metaphysics.
edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arbitrageur
I don't think you understand quantum mechanics and I don't think Lanza does either. Here's a quote by a scientist who DOES understand quantum mechanics from the video I posted on page 1 that directly contradicts that claim about a conscious observer:

Going down utterly bogus roads is not science, any claims by Lanza to the contrary notwithstanding. So I agree this is not a science topic but it's metaphysics.


I like the manner in which Sean Carroll explains things, however you seem to be going all in on his statement regarding the relationship between a conscious observer and a particle's wave function. Since his interpretation of QM is one of many in the scientific community, one that he concedes is in the minority, why should anyone else go all in like you have? Isn't all just an intersubjective interpretation of this ever elusive "objective reality"?

ETA: IOW why should his statement re: QM be held as gospel? You seem to be rendering another scientist's interpretation as bogus simply because, why? You don't like it.
edit on 31-1-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Sean Carroll is simply wrong and this isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Experiment after experiment after experiment shows this.

It's not just the act of observation. A lot of people say the wave function collapses when the observer looks at it. We're not talking about just looking at it. Experiments show that particles change the way they behave based on what we will know.

Again, this isn't opinion, it's fact.

So it's not just looking at it, it's what we know and don't know. Experiments have even showed that this occurs retroactively and isn't bound by our notions of space-time.

For instance, if you have an entangled particle pair and one goes to Detector A and the other to Detector B and you put a QWP (Quarter Wave Plate) in front of Detector A then the pair will behave like a particle and this will show up on the coincidence counter.

Let's change it up. We now will put a polarizing window in the path of the particle going to the B Detector. This will stop the Detector from registering any coincidences. What happens?

A wave pattern shows up for the particle going to Detector A because we can't know which path information. It goes even deeper.

Let's say you move Detector B back further so it takes particle B longer to reach the Detector. Remember, the particle going to Detector A has a QWP in front of it and particle A will be measured before particle B reaches the polarizing window

What happens?

Even when there's a QWP there to measure which path information it still behaves as a wave because in the future we cannot know which path information. So the perceived separation of time can't even break the link between what a conscious observer will or will not know and the behavior of subatomic particles.

The particle is linked to what the conscious observer will or will not know and Sean Carroll or anyone else can't put their heads in the sand and ignore what experiment after experiment is telling us. The particle behaves in a way that's based on what a conscious observer will or will not know.
edit on 31-1-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

Sean Carroll does try to differentiate between what is established consensus science, and what is not established science but his personal opinion, and he admits his personal opinion about QM interpretation is just that, and not consensus science.

If you took a poll of quantum physicists and asked them if Sean Carrol is right about a conscious observer not being necessary to make a quantum mechanical "observation" as physicists define "observation" in that sense, I think you'd get agreement.

Edit: Actually I found a reference to such a poll:

Consciousness

In a poll conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 2011, 6% of the respondents indicated that they believed the observer "plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness)".


Hopefully we can all agree that 6% is not a consensus view.
edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
What I got out of biocentrism is that

consciousness creates reality. There was nothing until consciousness created it. The proverbial tree in the forest isn't even there until someone is there to observe it, until that time, its all just waves of potential. There will be no end to the universe for our anticipation will keep on creating.....



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


So, if I hit you with my pillow, does that pillow actually exist? Will the absence of said pillow negate any retaliation?
...either way I'll still probably run like hell after smacking you with my fluffy nonexistent pillow



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

Sean Carroll does try to differentiate between what is established consensus science, and what is not established science but his personal opinion, and he admits his personal opinion about QM interpretation is just that, and not consensus science.

If you took a poll of quantum physicists and asked them if Sean Carrol is right about a conscious observer not being necessary to make a quantum mechanical "observation" as physicists define "observation" in that sense, I think you'd get agreement.

Edit: Actually I found a reference to such a poll:

Consciousness

In a poll conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 2011, 6% of the respondents indicated that they believed the observer "plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness)".


Hopefully we can all agree that 6% is not a consensus view.
edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


Actually your entire poll is not a consensus view.
The results were gleaned from 33 participants, combining physicists (27), philosophers(5), mathematicians(3), and claims not to be representative of the community at large.* And rightly so....
*-multiple choices were allowed.

Conclusions from the poll:

...., nearly 90 years after [quantum] theory's development, there is still no consensus in the
scienti fic community regarding the interpretation of the theory's foundational building blocks. Our poll is an urgent reminder of this peculiar situation.


It seems the 6%'ers had changed their interpretation a number of times before answering the way they did... I wonder which of the 33 answered that way...
Poll results explained.

I never really liked polls, I find they can be misleading and used as tools of influence for an unsuspecting, naive, or just plain ignorant mass. However sometimes the information can be interesting...



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

As for QM interpretation, it's consistent with the poll Sean Carroll talked about that there is no consensus on QM interpretation.

But my interpretation of the poll is that there is a 94% consensus that consciousness does not cause the wave function to collapse and even the authors of the paper give their opinion that to suggest the Copenhagen interpretation suggests that is to misunderstand the Copenhagen interpretation. From your link:


very few adhere to the notion that the observer plays a distinguished
physical role (for example, through a consciousness-induced collapse of the wave function).
Given the relatively strong (42%) support for the Copenhagen interpretation (see Question 12), this finding shows that support of the Copenhagen interpretation does not necessarily imply a belief in a fundamental role for consciousness. (Popular accounts have sometimes suggested that the Copenhagen interpretation attributes such a role to consciousness. In our view, this is to misunderstand the Copenhagen interpretation.)


So physicists agree to a large extent that consciousness doesn't cause the wave function to collapse.

Beyond that, yes they are not in agreement on how to interpret some aspects of quantum mechanics, which was the point of the video I posted on page 1.

Edit to add: I noticed the paper says philosophers are also included. In my experience philosophers are liable to say anything, and if they are in the sample they could account for the 6% in which case no physicists in the poll think consciousness collapses the wave function. Unfortunately the raw data isn't provided so there's no way to confirm this.
edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


This statement doesn't make any sense.


So physicists agree to a large extent that consciousness doesn't cause the wave function to collapse.


First you have to ask, why is there such a vested interest to show that consciousness has nothing to do with the wave function collapse?

I remember reading a book by David Deutsch who said he likes MWI because it removes the need for an observer. Why are people so scared of a conscious observer interacting with subatomic particles based on what the conscious observer knows about the system?

Again, as I pointed out earlier, what the conscious observer knows and doesn't know directly affects the behavior of particles and this has been shown to be true in experiment after experiment.

Why is there such an effort to try and kill consciousness and a desperate need to try to separate consciousness from the universe?

It just amazes me how people fear the conscious observer and they want to make consciousness a meaningless end result of blind materialism even though there isn't any evidence to support this notion.

People don't even know what consciousness is or how the material brain can give rise to consciousness yet they can tell us that consciousness is an isolated anomaly that has nothing to do with measurements and the wave function. This is just laughable and it speaks volumes.

It's a reason why any mention of consciousness being connected to quantum mechanics is met with fear and certainty that this isn't the case yet they have no idea what consciousness is or how it emerges from a material brain.

It makes no sense especially when experiment after experiment says otherwise.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   

PhotonEffect
But if I'm to understand what you are implying, do you believe that there is no subjective experience then? If so how would you reconcile (using the scientific method) that when I stubbed my toe I experienced a pain and not an itch. Or to what degree, or that I even experienced anything at all? How would you reconcile your experience of the color orange?

The subjective is no more than a collection of information. The stubbing of a toe, the perception of orange... these feelings are converted to nothing more than information, neural connections in a brain, ion signals... which are more of multiple objects than subjects. The way you differentiate pain from itch is because of the quantity of nervous signal the toe will send to your brain - the quantity of objects it transmits to your brain, here "objects" being ions.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 06:07 AM
link   

neoholographic
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

The particle is linked to what the conscious observer will or will not know and Sean Carroll or anyone else can't put their heads in the sand and ignore what experiment after experiment is telling us.


You make alot of references to such "experiments". Is there any way you could link us to what experiments and researchers you are referring to? I know you told us it's in the book, but many of us work alot and don't have much time to read books.

Were the experiment following the scientific method? Were they using the same definition of an "observation" as Werner Heisenberg did?


edit on 1-2-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   

neoholographic
Why is there such an effort to try and kill consciousness and a desperate need to try to separate consciousness from the universe?
You really need to reverse that question. Double slit experiments can be performed in a location where no conscious observers are present, and the wave function still collapses when the observation is made by a device which lacks consciousness.

It seems to me like there is a desperate need by some people to assign some significance to consciousness in the double slit experiment that it simply doesn't have, so that they can then go on to make loftier claims about consciousness. Why is this?

I think the same thing that has driven people to religion since prehistory is probably the same thing driving what I see as religious (meaning unfounded in science) views about consciousness, and one of the biggest drivers in this context is that we aren't fond of contemplating the possibility that our mortal existence may end someday, so we like to make up stories about how that won't happen, to make ourselves feel better. And it does make some people feel better which I think is why these ideas enjoy some popularity, as do other religious ideas about immortality, reincarnation, etc.

As people have noted, all evidence indicates the universe has been around for almost 14 billion years, and it survived 99.99% of that time just fine before humans came along, some of whom have lofty ideas about their own consciousness. Anyway here's a description of the "Lanza Woo" which I think has merit and is accurate in many ways:

Robert Lanza’s Quantum Woo

...Lanza is trying to spin this logical fallacy into a theory of everything which he calls biocentrism. This is really just a repackaging of the anthropic principle (so it’s not even original BS). So-called weak anthropic principles states that the universe must have the properties necessary for intelligent life because we exist – in any universe where there is an entity capable of asking the question, the physical laws must be compatible with such an entity. This is ultimately an unremarkable circular argument – and that’s kind of the point. The fact that the laws of the universe allow for our existence is necessary and unremarkable....

Lanza combines the lottery fallacy of the strong anthropic principle with the quantum woo of Chopra – grossly misinterpreting quantum physics in the typical way that we have encountered numerous times before. Evolution does not need an observer – there is nothing in the process of evolution, and no observation of nature that requires it. Bohr it talking about a quantum phenomenon of the collapse of the probability wave. But this does not require a literal observer, just interaction with the surrounding environment. Other particles, in other words, can serve as the “observer” – the universe can observe itself just fine without us, and we are back to the laws of nature unfolding on their own without the need of intelligent observation of guidance....

In the end Lanza’s biocentrism is a laughable mess of confusion, poor logic, misinterpretation of quantum mechanics and cosmology, and rampant egocentrism. It is egocentric in two ways – in the very concept that we humans create reality around us, and in his presumption that he has come up with a theory of everything.
The anthropic principle is kind of a silly tautology which as the wiki says can be summarized as an elaborate way of saying


"if things were different, they would be different,"

which is a valid statement, but does not make a claim of some factual alternative over another.

The philosophers of cosmology John Earman, Ernan McMullin, and Jesús Mosterín contend that "in its weak version, the anthropic principle is a mere tautology, which does not allow us to explain anything or to predict anything that we did not already know. In its strong version, it is a gratuitous speculation".
en.wikipedia.org...

In other words, how does saying "if things were different, they would be different" help anything? It makes some people feel better in some apparently religious sense but so have many other religious beliefs over the millenia. It's silly to me to assign any more significance to that statement than it has at face value, but if it makes you feel better and maybe it does, well I agree it's true, but so what?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Arbitrageur
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 

Edit to add: I noticed the paper says philosophers are also included. In my experience philosophers are liable to say anything, and if they are in the sample they could account for the 6% in which case no physicists in the poll think consciousness collapses the wave function. Unfortunately the raw data isn't provided so there's no way to confirm this


Yes, I suspected this too, and was hoping the paper included some idea of who chose what answers.

I'll have to research more into the experiments for both sides of the debate.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


You're missing the point I think. All of those signals are objective in a way, yes, but the experience of those signals is not. Subjectivity is the product of your brain as it interprets this information into "your" experience of the supposed "objective" world, relating to "you" only and nobody else. It's your point of view.

Your brain gathers all of the information from your senses and forms "a" (not "the") construct of reality, in your mind. Your reality is only one version of the reality that is out there. And it is not the same as my version. The only one you know for sure is the one that your mind has constructed for you. Hence the delineation between subject and object.

That's not the color blue you are seeing. Those are electromagnetic waves that your brain has converted into the color blue. That's not Mozart you're hearing, those are puffs of air vibrating your eardrum which the brain then converts into a sound. It's why if a tree falls in a forest and no one was there to hear it, it actually did not make a noise.. Because the puffs of air shot off into every direction without an eardrum to convert it into a sound.... But I'm sure you already understand this idea...

Your thoughts, ideas, feelings, opinions ad infinitum are yours and are not objects in the physical sense. I can't ever see an idea of yours unless you materialize it in some manner.

Your denial of the concept of subjectivity makes no sense to me. I wonder who/what your influences are so I can gain more perspective on this...



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


First off, you know the debate has reached a new low when pseudoskeptics and materialist start talking about quantum woo. It just means they can't debate the issue so they say it's quantum woo to make themselves feel better.

So my advice would be, if you have reached the quantum woo point in a debate just stop debating and actually read the book. It's sad, but I would say 99% of the people who label Biocentrism quantum woo or they say it isn't science haven't read the book. They just have a knee jerk reaction that has nothing to do with the debate.

Like I said, the fear of consciousness is just so apparent and it makes no sense. On one hand, they don't know what consciousness is or how it emerged from the material brain but they can tell you with certainty what consciousness can't be. So when people actually think and start to look at consciousness in a way that doesn't fit their preconceived notion as to what consciousness must be, they just label it woo, pseudoscience or wishful thinking.

The person you quoted obviously didn't read Lanza's book or they're repeating what others may think about Lanza's book without actually reading the book for themselves.

Here's an actual quote from Biocentrism about the strong anthropic principle:


The "strong" version, ONE THAT SKIRTS THE EDGES OF PHILOSOPHY even more closely but clearly supports biocentrism, says that the universe must have those properties that allow life to develop within it because it was "obviously" designed with a goal of generating and sustaining observers. BUT WITHOUT BIOCENTRISM, THE STRONG ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE HAS NO MECHANISM FOR EXPLAING WHY THE UNIVERSE MUST HAVE LIFE SUSTAINING PROPERTIES.


So if you or the person you quoted from and the person they quoted from would have actually read the book they wouldn't make such silly claims. Lanza clearly describes the strong anthropic principle as skirting the edges of philosophy without Biocentrism. Lanza then goes on to talk about Wheeler and the Participatory Anthropic Principle

Again, this is just one chapter in the book that doesn't see the constants of the universe as unremarkable. In fact it's so remarkable that many people support MWI because they realize the universe would be a miracle if every other possibility didn't also occur.

Again, experiment after experiment shows what the conscious observer knows or doesn't know about the state of a particle affects the way the particle behaves. This link isn't bound by our notions of space-time. Also, Lanza isn't the first to realize the limits of reductionism. Atheist David Deutsch said this:


I think that the argument against free will from reductionism is just a mistake. It's a fundamental mistake. It's the idea that all explanation must be in terms of microscopic things. There's no philosophical argument in favor of that that I'm aware of. It's just an assumption. It has historical roots in how science centuries ago escaped from the clutches of the supernatural. And as I said earlier, certainly I'm opposed to any kind of modes of explanation in terms of immaterial things, in terms of abstractions, that contradict physics, but the idea that all such explanations by their very nature contradict physics is simply false….

We have to accept the physical world as we find it. We have to find the best explanations that explain it, rather than impose, by dogma, a criterion that explanations have to meet other than that they explain reality.


Is this woo?

When a friend died, Einstein said this to his family.


"Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion"


Is this woo?

Max Planck said this:


“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”


And this:


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.


Is this woo?

Werner Heisenberg said this:


“We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but
nature exposed to our method of questioning.”



“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”



“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”


Is this quantum woo?

The point is, when ever you talk about things like consciousness or quantum mechanics that doesn't conform to blind belief of materialism, you hear the words "woo" or "that's not science."

So if you're a materialist or pseudoskeptic and you have reached the quantum woo level of debate, you should just stop and stick your head in the sand and continue to live in the blissful ignorance of your belief because when you reach this level, it adds nothing to the debate.
edit on 1-2-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I'm wondering how the skeptics in this thread explain these results.

Double-slit Experiment Published in Physics Essays

Abstract:

A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern's double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s.

Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z=–4:36, p=6x10–6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0:43, p=0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified.

By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern.

The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Your source is not a physics paper, it's a site about, basically, magic.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join