Consciousness is a Quantum Entity

The notion of consciousness as nothing but information processing in the brain leads logically to the mathematical universe hypothesis, in which case whether we are in a "Matrix" simulation or not is irrelevant because all possible realities must exist (consciousness as information processing = ability to produce consciousness in a computer simulation = ability to produce consciousness by pencil and paper = consciousness is really just "in the math" and therefore every "mathematically possible" consciousness must exist).

Fortunately consciousness is obviously more than mere physical information processing, but this can be proven only by intuition (the nice thing is anyone can do it).

reply to post by sirnex


I'd like to see one scientific peer reviewed study that says religion is the worlds best business!!

JK =)

War is clearly the world's best business my friend.

reply to post by NewlyAwakened

The notion of consciousness as nothing but information processing in the brain leads logically to the mathematical universe hypothesis, in which case whether we are in a "Matrix" simulation or not is irrelevant because all possible realities must exist (consciousness as information processing = ability to produce consciousness in a computer simulation = ability to produce consciousness by pencil and paper = consciousness is really just "in the math" and therefore every "mathematically possible" consciousness must exist).

I'll readily agree that consciousness arises from information processing, but one needs something physical in order to process that information, which is where the brain comes into play. Then we need some way to receive information, which is where our five sensory organs come into play. If any of those systems fail, so then do our ability to function in reality. Without the sensory organs working properly, damaged in some way or the workings altered by drug usage we lose ability to perceive various aspects of reality, but regardless of that loss or skewed function reality still maintains the same. If your tripping on shrooms, feeling no pain due to anesthesia and knocked unconscious from a tranquilizer... if I throw you to the lions it'll still eat you.

Point is, the rest of reality doesn't care how you perceive it or if you do at all. Your conscious mind won't affect how it works.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

What do you consider 'peer reviewed report'?
If you want someone to present you a convincing other perspective, the least you could do is watch all three.
I think assuming that the world is built of solid little blocks, atoms lead to cells, that lead to molecules and then to brain and then out of that comes consciousness is where science has gone wrong . Consciousness is primary, first there was nothing.

The peer review process keeps people from having any claim wildly published without fact verification. I disagree with the first there was nothing stance because there is no such thing as nothingness. One also has to think, if matter can't arise from nothingness, then how does energy, consciousness, God(s), universes, multiverses, etc. You can't claim x arose from nothing, but then nothing else can but that one thing.

reply to post by Communicater

And here all the time I thought the banks/investment firms having their own private federal reserve corporation who can tell treasury to print worthless money from thin air with no backing was number one on the hit parade...

Well, I consider that more of a recent economic development. Religion has been around since the very first time we asked what where when how and why.

reply to post by Buddha1098

War is clearly the world's best business my friend.

I consider this also a more recent economic issue. War in ancient history, primarily the bloody murderous wars from the Christians was more for pushing their religious beliefs forcibly upon the world than it was for economic gain. Religion has always stood financial gain throughout history, first from sacrificial offerings, then "donations" of food and beverage to the "God(s)" (more like priests), then monetary donations, etc. Religion has always always stood to gain something in return for peddling it's beliefs.

reply to post by sirnex

Sirnex, you seem to be very knowledgeable in this topic, and I am glad we can enjoy such discourse in a respectable manner!

I am curious to see hear what problems you have with digital physics! I know it is just a theory as well as many other, but I have to wonder if there is even the slightest grain of truth to this theory? I would have to assume, a man as intelligent as Fredkins, was not to far lost to the fringe to make some valuable contribution to science.

the universe is far more mysterious than we admit. Obviously, we do understand a lot about the the universe, but we have been able to create systems that perform wonderfully with our current understanding of how the world works. But we must always strive to exceed what we have already created or understood.

I personally feel there is a great chasm between our view of the materialistic universe and the mental universe. Somehow these two forces need to be integrated, and our modern science has run away from this issue it seems. We cannot do that! we cannot divide reality like that in my opinion.

We need to find a meeting point where the chaos of the mind can meet the deterministic view of materialism.

If you havent visited these threads yet, check them out, I know they wont change your mind, but they both talk about, in my opinon, of how the event horizon of information and matter/energy may relate.
Reversible Computing
Rule 110

reply to post by sirnex


it seems this argument comes down to-
you need the observed object and the observer.

you cant have one without the other?

reply to post by sirnex


The peer review process stops people from publishing facts without verification.
Is that like the thought police?
Is there such a thing as fact?
The only thing you can say for 100% certainty is that there is experience.
Science can't say how that happens, or what experience is.

reply to post by VonDoomen

I am curious to see hear what problems you have with digital physics! I know it is just a theory as well as many other, but I have to wonder if there is even the slightest grain of truth to this theory? I would have to assume, a man as intelligent as Fredkins, was not to far lost to the fringe to make some valuable contribution to science.

It doesn't answer anything at all, that's the issue here. It just pushes the problem of what reality really is to some higher existence that we can't ever explore. It's an infinite regression issue. Instead of trying to solve the issue of what reality is and how matter arises, this theory is saying it doesn't matter, it's a computer simulation. Sure, it might not *specifically* say that out right, but ultimately that's what it is. We might as well just say God did it.

the universe is far more mysterious than we admit. Obviously, we do understand a lot about the the universe, but we have been able to create systems that perform wonderfully with our current understanding of how the world works. But we must always strive to exceed what we have already created or understood.

Thing is, scientists already know there is a lot we don't know about the universe. Most of our theories don't really hold up that well with recent observations either, such as large structures in the universe that would require over a 150 billion years to form and yet current theory places the age of the universe at roughly 13 billion years of age. There's certainly a lot we don't know yet.

I personally feel there is a great chasm between our view of the materialistic universe and the mental universe. Somehow these two forces need to be integrated, and our modern science has run away from this issue it seems. We cannot do that! we cannot divide reality like that in my opinion.

There is no chasm, it's called neuroscience.

it seems this argument comes down to-
you need the observed object and the observer.

you cant have one without the other?

I'm assuming this statement is taken from the observer effect. If it is, then mind you it says nothing about conscious mind being the observer. An electron alone is a sufficient observer. When it's talking about an "observer" it's just meaning two things interacting with one another. The human mind never directly observes anything. Everything first enters through the five sensory organs and then runs through the nervous system, into the brain, get's processed and then the conscious mind is made aware of that information. There are so so so so many physical interaction taking place in what seems like no time at all before our minds are even aware of what's going on.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

The peer review process stops people from publishing facts without verification.
Is that like the thought police?
Is there such a thing as fact?
The only thing you can say for 100% certainty is that there is experience.
Science can't say how that happens, or what experience is.

No, it's not like the thought police. It keeps people from lying. Like saying if I drop this bowling ball it'll float upwards. The peer review process would force the claimant to verify that statement, then others will attempt to verify that statement. If that statement can not be verified, then it's bull crap quackery. And I don't know about you, but I can say for 100% certainty that everything our technology makes use of does indeed exist. I can also say with 100% certainty that gravity will clean up your suspicions of evil scientist if you jump out a plane without a parachute!

reply to post by sirnex


But can it tell you what would be the experience of the free-faller, after hitting the ground?
The only way to the truth is to admit we don't know diddley sqat.
This 'peer review process', who are the reviewers?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by sirnex

 

But can it tell you what would be the experience of the free-faller, after hitting the ground?
The only way to the truth is to admit we don't know diddley sqat.
This 'peer review process', who are the reviewers?

The reviewers are usually other scientists who perform the experiments to determine if they can also get the same results. If you so chose, had the money and equipment, you could also perform any of the experiments yourself to verify the results are indeed what they are claimed to be. It's just silly and pointless to mind numbingly bitch that only because the scientists perform scientific experiments to verify scientific claims that they must all not be telling the truth.

Drop a ball a few hundred times, simplest experiment I can think of for you to verify that some force we call gravity does indeed exist.

Technically, it *could* tell you what you would experience during free fall. Adrenaline and cortisol levels would skyrocket causing your heart to beat faster, the amygdala will secrete steroid androstadienone inducing fear as you realize your about to die without a parachute. But then again, those evil bastard scientists are all liars with their peer review process peddling information they want us to think is true.

reply to post by sirnex


There is a word that describes what happens when an item is dropped from a height, that word is gravity.
Can you or any scientist tell me what it means and why it happens. They maybe able to make lots of noises of how it happens by looking at it and measuring it but that does not explain why we even care.
The story about what the free faller experiences, that you have made up, is just that, a story.
There are many accounts of near death experiences that say it is very peaceful and there is no fear. But i have not experienced that so that is also, just a story.
Every theory is a story that may or not be true.
Each experience in this eternal now is real, is reality.
Stories and theories, ideas and concepts are just that. Imaginations.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

There is a word that describes what happens when an item is dropped from a height, that word is gravity.
Can you or any scientist tell me what it means and why it happens. They maybe able to make lots of noises of how it happens by looking at it and measuring it but that does not explain why we even care.

No, we can't explain gravity right now, but that's the wonderful aspect of science. Knowing something is there and trying to figure out what makes that thing work. To not attempt to know is called being cognitively lazy. It means your not using your noggin properly. Might as well drop the ball and do a beavis and butthead laugh.

The story about what the free faller experiences, that you have made up, is just that, a story.

Research and learn, that's all I got to say on the matter.

There are many accounts of near death experiences that say it is very peaceful and there is no fear. But i have not experienced that so that is also, just a story.

There are many NDE accounts that vary GREATLY from one another. Gasp, even some where nothing is seen or experienced at all. Most depend upon cultural and religious beliefs and we even know what chemical the brain secretes and reproduce these experiences in normal healthy very alive people.

Every theory is a story that may or not be true.

Which is why we have a peer review process, to keep people from peddling falsehoods.

Each experience in this eternal now is real, is reality.

Experience alone is not the entirety of reality.

Stories and theories, ideas and concepts are just that. Imaginations.

Yes, without a peer review process to verify these things, I agree.

reply to post by sirnex


You are very sure of science and seem to believe what scientists say, i will not try to open yours eyes anymore.
I am intrigued by your signature however. What does it mean?????
signature:
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” - Nikola Tesla

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by sirnex

 

You are very sure of science and seem to believe what scientists say, i will not try to open yours eyes anymore.
I am intrigued by your signature however. What does it mean?????
signature:
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” - Nikola Tesla

edit on 15-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

What it means is that we shouldn't use mathematical "proofs" to explain observations rather we should use experimentation in order to test our theories; Something to that effect. Tesla was a very very intelligent man and we can thank him for a lot of wonderful technologies that we use on a daily basis without realization that he had a hand in it all. I'm sure of science because I make daily use of the thing's science has provided you and I. Without scientific progress, peer review process, and the drive to understand, we wouldn't be sitting here on a computer powered by electricity to send messages at the speed of light through a vast communications network to be read by each other. Metaphysics, religion, spiritualism, idealism... none of those has provided us with anything but a bunch of people peddling books and dvd's. Now science, science has given us everything we use DAILY. If that doesn't make you appreciate science, then I don't know what will. Why use the fruits of scientific progress if you find science to be so untrustworthy? To me, that's hypocritical.

reply to post by sirnex


I think if you read and understand what your signature says you will see that you are contradicting yourself. The answer you have given proves that you do not understand by your own admission. 'Something to that effect', you conclude.
Tesla says “Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” - Nikola Tesla.

Scientists use maths and experiments to build an illusion of reality. This is what i understand from what he has said here. Tesla was indeed a very intelligent man.

reply to post by sirnex


This opening statement explaining what you think Tesla means;
What it means is that we shouldn't use mathematical "proofs" to explain observations rather we should use experimentation in order to test our theories; Something to that effect.
So this to me says;
firstly we make up a story, we have a theory, then we do experiments to prove our theory.
Did you hear the one about the scientist who thought the ears of a spider are in their legs, they trained it to jump every time someone shouted jump. One by one the legs were removed, each time one was removed the spider jumped less quickly and less high. When there were no legs left it no longer jumped, this proved that the ears were in fact in the legs.
The only way we can truly explain observation is to observe it.

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

reply to post by sirnex


War is only recently about economic gain? The Romans would disagree with you... You're entitled to your opinions but the data does not support it. The world spent 1.2 trillion dollars on military spending last year, compare that to the Vatican's paltry 5 billion in assets. You ask for scientific journals for someone else's opinion but your own relies only on your whim.

Occam's razor states that the simplest theory is often the best, suggesting that nature uses the simplest means to an end.

Perception is reality.

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

Originally posted by sirnex

I disagree, our conscious perception of the world around us is entirely dependent upon our five senses. A blind person has no conscious perception of any visual aspect to reality for example. We can use certain drugs that affect a persons physiology and thus affect their conscious perception of the things around them. You can have a stroke which can also affect how things work. You can die and that not a single person who has suffered bodily death and come back to confirm that consciousness lives on afterward is the ultimate evidence. The fact that every psychic medium who has agreed to be scientifically tested and debunked proves it even more.

Why we have evolved to the point where we can ask these questions is a different thing altogether. Yet we can not escape the fact that anything that happens to our sensory organs or our brain can and does time and time again affect our mind. That we go to sleep, performing a nightly experiment in observation of reality and others seeing us sleeping is more confirmation that reality still exists without our conscious observation of it. I can go on, but I'm bored now.

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

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

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