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.
Originally posted by sirnex
What do you mean? Science does study consciousness.
Ah, another ATS user who loves to argue correlation proves causation.
Because it's a logical fallacy, and most intelligent people try to avoid such things as much as possible.
I propose we are indeed mindless zombies without a conscious mind.
There is no reality without an observer.
yes, science is trying to study consciousness but the answers with the materialistic scientific methods are still far, far away from any answers...
like I said if there weren't any self awareness, we wouldn't be here... what is so hard to understand here? (I know, the problem is your arrogant close minded ego)
the epic fail of modern materialistic science is its' refusal to take the consciousness into account about life and the universe...
if you were intelligent then you would never avoid such a thing, but most people are scared of the unknown
yes, and by your arrogant posture I can only conclude that you are a very narcissistic zombie...
Originally posted by sirnex
logical fallacies.
Originally posted by sirnex
I'm not arguing against that, I'm arguing against:
the epic fail of modern materialistic science is its' refusal to take the consciousness into account about life and the universe...
You do know how to read don't you?
It isn't nonsense. It is because simply you cannot respond to it, because you lack the intellect to do so, so you resort to personal attacks. Sigh.
The statement "There is no reality without an observer" is not a fallacy at all, it is a truism. If there is no observer, nothing exists. Can you tell me what your face was before you were even born
yes, like I said, science exclude consciousness to be any part of their mathematical formulas, and dogmatic arrogant scientists get angry (just like you are now) when there appears any possibility that mind effects the so called matter (which on quantum level do not exist but only as energy)...
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by donhuangenaro
Agreed. I think we should ask him what logial fallacy we are exactly comitting. I think it is the fallacy where he does not understand something or refuses to understand something
It is amusing arguing with materialists and realists. They don't seem to understand that they are not just passive receivers of sense impressions from a real world, but those sense impressions are being processed by their minds, ordered and organized before any perception is possible at all. This has been known in Philosophy of Mind since Kant. The view that we are just blank tablets receiving sense impressions from the world is an obsolete one.
[edit on 23-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]
“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”
The discovery that particles are discrete packets of energy with wave-like properties led to the branch of physics that deals with atomic and subatomic systems which is today called quantum mechanics.
I was under the impression that physics cant handle the effect of a conciouse observer on an experiment because this conciouse observer destroys the wave function or sets it back to zero.
This means that the effect of a conciouse observer. Would destroy any attempt to measure the effects of a conciouse observer bieng present.
Does this mean we could never measure the effects of a conciouse observer. No matter how advanced Quantum Mechanics becomes?
And Does this esentialy make the conciouse observer "god" and mean ultimately that conciouseness can produce any result it wants?
And what does this mean for you and me ei. The conciouse observer. Could we effect anything we wanted to become whatever we wanted.?
this means matter is in fact energy, so it is possible for consciousness (which is energy too) to influence matter...
Does this mean we could never measure the effects of a conciouse observer. No matter how advanced Quantum Mechanics becomes?
And Does this esentialy make the conciouse observer "god" and mean ultimately that conciouseness can produce any result it wants?
And what does this mean for you and me ei. The conciouse observer. Could we effect anything we wanted to become whatever we wanted.?
You clearly do not understand the difference between correlation and causation.
s ource
All these examples deal with a lurking variable, which is simply a hidden third variable that affects both clauses of the correlation; for example, the fact that it is summer in Example 3.
If there is no consciousness, there is no reality. In other words this is a relationship of the form P then Q i.e. causation. As soon as your consciousness ceases your reality will end.
As soon as you alter consciousness, the world becomes something different.
In altered states of consciousness, the world changes. For example in dream consciousness the world appears differently.
I think what you are trying to say here is can it measure the causes of a conscious observer. Everything is an effect of the conscious observer, including electricity, and only effects can be measured. It is causes which cannot be measured.
No Quantum Mechanics will never be able to measure the causes. The observer effect is all about that, in every attempt we make to measure or detect something, we change the outcome. Thus causes will always be outside of empirical science.
This is a problem wiith many thinkers in quantum mechanics and new-age thinkers. They believe they are the observer and therefore creating reality. This is false, it is not we who are collapsing reality, it is the absolute observer or "god" We are already collapsed. God is the supreme observer that is making reality possible. Hence, why our bodes can die a thousand deaths and reality still remains. In that sense reality is objective and not subjective. We are not creating it.
We are basically like particles or fragments of god and god experiences infinite realities through us.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Algebra
I was under the impression that physics cant handle the effect of a conciouse observer on an experiment because this conciouse observer destroys the wave function or sets it back to zero.
No, the observer effect describes the instruments doing the measurement, we only see the results of that effect. The observer effect also states that consciousness is not inherently the observer, but that two electrons interacting is enough to constitute as an 'observer'. I provided the source link so we could avoid the debate I'm currently in, but the other two still wish to hang upon their unfounded opinions out of arrogance irregardless of the facts.
This means that the effect of a conciouse observer. Would destroy any attempt to measure the effects of a conciouse observer bieng present.
How do your sensory organs work? When you 'see' something, the light has already interacted with your retina and then travels down the optic nerve into the brain to be visually processed. The light doesn't magically disappear before hitting the retina and flutter about into some magical conscious realm.
Does this mean we could never measure the effects of a conciouse observer. No matter how advanced Quantum Mechanics becomes?
Consciousness has no effect on reality itself nor is this postulated by quantum theory alone.
And Does this esentialy make the conciouse observer "god" and mean ultimately that conciouseness can produce any result it wants?
No, if this were true then all my years of playing the lottery and wishing and hoping and believing very strongly that the ticket I had was a winner would have indeed been a winner. Wishful thinking will always remain wishful thinking.
And what does this mean for you and me ei. The conciouse observer. Could we effect anything we wanted to become whatever we wanted.?
Consciousness does no observing, we 'see' the results of all interactions that take place in reality. Science has never stated any differently, irregardless of whatever demonstratively erroneous material people want to put forth and applaud.
O.K thanks.
A lot to think about.
What is your backround by the way? if you dont mind me asking