Consciousness is a Quantum Entity

reply to post by sirnex

Are you talking about being consciously aware or just two things bumping into one another? Different concepts.

I think matrix rising is referring to concepts such as panpsychism or pan-experientialism which hold that consciousness is the fundamental and irreducible component of material reality.

These views solve the problem of wave-probability collapse in the absence of a human mind, as all interacting objects are themselves observers of that with which they interact.

reply to post by AlphaZero

I found an article on it shortly after posting that. If you think that technology is literally able to read and decode thoughts, I don't think you understood what the limitations were. It requires a clear mathematical model or sensory input and motor function. That's far from the potential complexity of the mind.

Yea, and they said heavier than air flight was impossible and that a human breaking the sound barrier would turn into mush. We're on the verge of technologically being able to reproduce the complexity of a human brain. Soon, possibly within the next 50 years we'll be able to upload the human mind into a computer, essentially cheating death.

And what do you mean you've "done" the qualia argument before? Assuming you agree with materialist philosophers such as Daniel Dennett, you realize that his theories and books are bashed just as much as idealist ones, correct?

I mean I've argued with people who exchange the word qualia as if it means something inherently different than the word experience alone.

I see a certain wavelength of light as a color I define as a red.
A color blind person is unable to see that wavelength the same way.
The wavelength stays the same regardless.
Therefore experience or "qualia" of that wavelength means nothing, it doesn't change the wavelength or properties of light.

No matter how much we try to describe the inherent limitations of materialism, they will be stuck in their beliefs much like dogmatic religious folk.

What limitations? Materialistic science has brought many great scientific achievments, one in which right now you are using to bash it. Idealism has brought... wait for it.... Still waiting? So am I and the rest of the world.

reply to post by NewlyAwakened

Experience, or idea I suppose, is primary. Matter and energy are inductive inferences derived from experience. The same sort of reasoning that says "The sun will rise tomorrow morning because that's what it always does" underlies all of science.

The physical process of orbital physics in relation to the Sun and Earth has been going on before humans evolved, before we defined it, before we measured it, before we described it in language. The analogy is piss poor as it assumes the Earth only began to orbit the Sun when we first proposed the idea.

Now for science it is convenient to use material as a starting point for many types of experiments. It's easy to forget that experience, idea, is still in front of all of this. So of course using this starting point you won't find any evidence! The evidence is right in front of your face, in front of your starting point!

Every experiment conducted into the realms of idealism has provided no new insights or technologies, nor has any evidence been shown. Spiritualism/metaphysics is an archaic superstitious archaic belief system that has evolved and changed over the thousands of years since Og first asked where it all came from.

reply to post by Jezus

Why?

That was towards Matrix, because he's a loony who bitches about materialism supposedly having no evidence for it whilst never providing evidence for his fantastical idealistic magic world.

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by sirnex

 

Are you talking about being consciously aware or just two things bumping into one another? Different concepts.

I think matrix rising is referring to concepts such as panpsychism or pan-experientialism which hold that consciousness is the fundamental and irreducible component of material reality.

These views solve the problem of wave-probability collapse in the absence of a human mind, as all interacting objects are themselves observers of that with which they interact.

Right, so... Fallacy of misplaced concreteness

reply to post by sirnex

Yes, I am aware of what the sun and moon have been doing since before humans existed, and the results of experiments. You are lecturing me from the very "starting point" I described in the post you responded to. I fear you have missed my point entirely.

Can you answer this question for me?

Come to think of it, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. As usual, it is my own error. I did not know the definition of idealism until I looked it up just now.

I reject it only because (according to Wikipedia anyway) it is apparently to be contrasted with the notion that external reality exists.

If I affirm that external reality exists but also affirm the obvious fact that the psyche is not merely some epiphenomenon of the interaction of unconscious matter, what does that make me?

(Honest question here; this is not rhetorical)

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
reply to post by sirnex

 

Yes, I am aware of what the sun and moon have been doing since before humans existed, and the results of experiments. You are lecturing me from the very "starting point" I described in the post you responded to. I fear you have missed my point entirely.

Can you answer this question for me?

edit on 18-4-2011 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)

Answered briefly in your other post.

No, I'm not lecturing from your "starting point" stance, I'm informing you that the starting point did not previously exist at all before humans evolved to claim they were the starting point to the physical process that existed prior to their existence. A mild case of narcissism does not make the world revolve.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
Come to think of it, I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. As usual, it is my own error. I did not know the definition of idealism until I looked it up just now.

I reject it only because (according to Wikipedia anyway) it is apparently to be contrasted with the notion that external reality exists.

If I affirm that external reality exists but also affirm the obvious fact that the psyche is not merely some epiphenomenon of the interaction of unconscious matter, what does that make me?

(Honest question here; this is not rhetorical)

edit on 18-4-2011 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)

I disagree with the obvious fact assertion. There is no evidence that consciousness exists upon it's own magical properties. Everything we know about consciousness (mind you, this is simply another way of saying self-aware), deals strictly with the functions of the brain.

Originally posted by sirnex
Answered briefly in your other post.

No, I'm not lecturing from your "starting point" stance, I'm informing you that the starting point did not previously exist at all before humans evolved to claim they were the starting point to the physical process that existed prior to their existence. A mild case of narcissism does not make the world revolve.

You are still entirely missing what I mean by "starting point". It doesn't matter when people came into existence. What I'm saying is we know what we know first and foremost through the psyche. Yes, this includes all of science. The way materialists deny the psyche these days is patently absurd.

Can somebody who understands what I mean help me out with this? I honestly do not understand why this concept is so hard for some people.

Originally posted by sirnex
I disagree with the obvious fact assertion. There is no evidence that consciousness exists upon it's own magical properties. Everything we know about consciousness (mind you, this is simply another way of saying self-aware), deals strictly with the functions of the brain.

You mean "everything we know about how observed neural activity correlates with reported experience" or some such. But in any case, how did we come by this knowledge? Start at the beginning.

(No, please don't write a long essay on the history of science. Just think about it for a moment. I'm just trying to provoke some reflection.)

reply to post by NewlyAwakened

You are still entirely missing what I mean by "starting point". It doesn't matter when people came into existence. What I'm saying is we know what we know first and foremost through the psyche. Yes, this includes all of science.

Regardless of how we come to know something does not detract from the thing existing upon it's own accord. I understand what your attempting to say, but what your saying is a moot point. Yes, to know how something works we have to have a conscious awareness and ability to define that thing. Regardless of our existence, knowledge, experience, or definition of anything that exists, it still exists.

The way materialists deny the psyche these days is patently absurd.

Materialists do not deny the psyche as a material phenomenon. There is no evidence that consciousness magically exists upon it's own magical properties or continues on after bodily death.

Just think about it for a moment. I'm just trying to provoke some reflection.

As am I. If materialism were not true, then how does anything, even consciousness arise at all? Try answering that without claiming information magically exists upon it's own magical properties like Matrix claims (without supporting evidence).

reply to post by Newly Awakened


The external 'things' exist in appearance only, that would be all things are illusions, mirages or rainbows.
In a dream, what exists?
When you awake from a dream you will dismiss it as unreal. So what really existed in the dream, 'things'???

This 'thing' you call yourself, (you ask 'what does that make me?' (good question)), is what?
You are there viewing the dream when you are asleep dreaming. You are here now viewing the pc monitor. What is it that is constantly present, no matter what 'things' are being dreamt.
You are the one constant 'thing', while all other 'things' come and go.

You may then realize that you are not a 'thing'.
The body is a thing. The mind is a thing. They are also passing.
You are the viewer of it all.

reply to post by sirnex


This is a dream and you can't prove it isn't.
There are no material objects in a dream, it may look and feel very, very real, but it has all been made up in the apparent brain.
I say the apparent brain because it is only a dream brain. Everything is part of the dream, the brain, the body, the pc you are seeing now, all appearances within the dream.

What is it that is veiwing the dream and why does it even appear?

reply to post by sirnex


Sirnex, thought you may enjoy browsing this!
The emergence of the physical world from information processing
Link


Pretty interesting read, regardless what side of the fence you sit on!

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by sirnex

 

This is a dream and you can't prove it isn't.
There are no material objects in a dream, it may look and feel very, very real, but it has all been made up in the apparent brain.
I say the apparent brain because it is only a dream brain. Everything is part of the dream, the brain, the body, the pc you are seeing now, all appearances within the dream.

What is it that is veiwing the dream and why does it even appear?

Who's dream? Yours, mine, or someone else altogether? If it's all just a dream, then there is no way of knowing if even yourself is a real entity viewing anything at all. You essentially do not exist as your own person. You're just dreamed to appear as if you do. So we might still have to maintain that consciousness is merely an illusion and doesn't truly exist at all. Yet now we have an infinite regression thrown into the problem. If neither you nor I are real conscious entities, then perhaps the dreamer isn't either and is merely a dream itself. But then this entity isn't really real, now is it? So then it's dreamer must be real, or perhaps that dreamer is a dream as well and not an actual conscious entity who is doing the dreaming.

You see the problem yet?

reply to post by sirnex


I don't see this as a problem. I see and know this is the solution.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by sirnex

 

Sirnex, thought you may enjoy browsing this!
The emergence of the physical world from information processing
Link


Pretty interesting read, regardless what side of the fence you sit on!

Haven't had a chance to read beyond the abstract yet, but without materialism, what exactly is information? What are the properties if information? Where does it reside, how does it function to give the illusion of materialism? How does information interact with information without a materialistic medium?

We can't just simply say information exists alone and leave it at that and then continue to claim that this gives rise to the illusion of thing's having material existence. That doesn't provide any real tangible testable answer.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by sirnex

 

I don't see this as a problem. I see and know this is the solution.

So you have no problem with nothing actually existing at all. You, me, the dreamer, the dreamers dreamer, the dreamers dreamers dreamer, etc.?

If nothing is real, doesn't actually exist, there is no real conscious entity doing the dreaming, then what is reality? You've answered nothing with your assertion.

reply to post by sirnex


It's no ones dream. It belongs to no one.
It is merely the dream itself.
But you can not say the words 'I am not.'
To be or not to be? That is the question.
Try not to be.
That is your answer.
You are being.

This body and mind that is seen in the dream will come and go.
All things within the dream come and go.
The dream is eternal.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by sirnex

 

It's no ones dream. It belongs to no one.
It is merely the dream itself.
But you can not say the words 'I am not.'
To be or not to be? That is the question.
Try not to be.
That is your answer.
You are being.

This body and mind that is seen in the dream will come and go.
All things within the dream come and go.
The dream is eternal.

So you're saying we just have this dream in which there are no real conscious entities?

What exactly is a dream? How does a dream just exist of it's own accord? If nothing is dreaming, then how does the dream exist at all? What are a dream's properties? How does a dream that comes from nothing at all exist and produce entities that don't really exist that think they exist?

You're not answering anything.

reply to post by sirnex


The only 'thing' that exists is being. Yet 'being' is not a thing. So really it does not constitute existing in the way way see existing.
It is existance itself.