Addendum to Mr Hamilton: Mindless?

Originally posted by Taoman
It astounds me first that both yourself and tw fail to acknowledge in any serious way the immense discussion amongst scientists as to the apparent connection of consciousness with the collapse of superposition.

Maybe I fail to acknowledge it because I am not aware of it. I suspect though that it is you that is in error and believes there is serious discussion when there isn't.
Do you have any references?

You totally ignore the proven phenomenon of non-locality.
When have I totally ignored this?

How do you fit that into your materialist viewpoint please?
I really don't know what you are getting at here. I suspect you have your own theories that you are not clearly stating and somehow expect us to give counter arguments. We are not mind readers you know. Give us your theory about non-locality and we will tell you if it makes sense to use and if we agree with it. Don't just hint that we are missing something but not say what it is we are missing.

Originally posted by JS357
This is not nearly as big a deal as it is sometimes made out to be.

Discovery of the workings of the universe will always have a frontier where ideas are tentative and even speculative, and new aspects/entities are posited and tested.

If it is science, the speculations will be limited to natural phenomena and natural explanations of them. Otherwise it wi ...[text shortened]... theists will deny the existence of God, or proclaim inadequate scientific evidence for one, etc.

And if we do establish strong indications of "a field consciousness-like factor" the great amount of science already established will still be followed and used etc. But as with all new findings it will effect many previous theoretical postulations, perhaps not proving or disproving them, as I agree with you, this is a different ball game to the previous analytical/mechanistic/measuring science. But we could have said something similar prior to the quantum discoveries. If it can be divorced from primitive theistic ideas and approached in a more rational manner, that will help.

Theistic postulations of the old sort will eventually die out I believe, and a far more sophisticated concept of the grounds of existence will emerge over next centuries in my opinion. And it takes centuries. There will always be a religious aspect amongst humanity, its almost genetic, but it develops like everything else. A lot has to do with how these "phenomenon" are labelled and spoken about.

Appreciate the comment JS.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
http://athousandyoung.blogspot.com/2010/12/history-and-prehistory-of-everything.html

I think a lot of those strange sounding concepts like "expansion of space" and "beginning of time" are much simpler and more intuitive than they sound. I think these airy fairy phrases are intended to impress people who don't really understand and don't really wan ...[text shortened]... he other hand must be the left hand it's not because the left hand "knew" anything.

So you think there is nothing unusual or ground-breaking in the quantum discoveries?

My "mystic" talk and your scientific talk of the phenomenon are secondary. Science is great at the necessary labelling and categorising, but it doesn't explain finally the phenomenon we refer too. My beef is that at any point if anyone raises the possibility of a "field consciousness-like" exploration it is immediately dumped aside and disparaged as "mystic" talk.
I know it can't be measured and tested. Many things we accept cannot be. Holistic aspects of systems are not as easily examined/measured as the analytical approach. We have a bicameral brain, with one side highly analytical and the other holistic.
T
More and more highly qualified scientists are exploring seriously the nature of quantum field effects and see much similarity with a field of consciousness. Are these too mystic talkers?

I am well aware of the scientific theory label-dropping you mention, by the way, who wouldn't be in this area?

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”

Max Planck (German theoretical Physicist who originated quantum theory, 1858-1947)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Maybe I fail to acknowledge it because I am not aware of it. I suspect though that it is you that is in error and believes there is serious discussion when there isn't.
Do you have any references?

[b]You totally ignore the proven phenomenon of non-locality.
When have I totally ignored this?

How do you fit that into your materialist viewpoin ...[text shortened]... with it. Don't just hint that we are missing something but not say what it is we are missing.

Don't expect me to do your home work. If you don't know about non-locality, or understand things like Bell's Theorem, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle or read up on Alain Aspect whom I mentioned, the discussion cannot proceed intelligently.

You also change the focus of the OP. I raise the known issue of non-locality as a pointer to the fact that the previous paradigm of mechanistic science is being confronted with serious questions as to the nature of the underlying reality.

Do I need to hold your hand? I don't expect you to read my mind, but to use yours.

Under Google, search terms "non-locality Aspect" found in top half first page:

"The Phenomenon of Quantum Nonlocality

Because the spin of a particle does not exist until a measurement is made, the act of making the measurement and determining the axis of spin of particle 1, will also determine the spin of particle 2, no matter how far apart it is from particle 1. Particle 2 will instantly respond to the state of particle 1, even if it is on the other side of the universe.

At the instant we perform our measurement on particle 1, particle 2, which may be thousands of miles away, will acquire a definite spin -- "up" or "down" if we have chosen a vertical axis, "left" or "right" if we have chosen a horizontal axis. How does particle 2 know which axis we have chosen? There is no time for it to receive that information by any conventional signal. (Capra, 1982, p. 85).

Quantum nonlocality as suggested by Bell's theorem is a fact of nature that has now been experimentally verified on many occasions. Alain Aspect's experiments in 1982 at the University of Paris-South proved the existence of quantum nonlocality. These experiments have been refined and repeated many times since."

http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Quantum%20Nonlocality.htm

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Thanks for the details. I will integrate them.

OK, done. His birth and death are correctly added in.

I have the Great Flood listed by it's scientific name, the Flandrian Transgression, at about 5000 BCE. Do you agree with that date and what follows it?

I don't know. I have absolutely no insight. Your guess is
as good as mine and probably better. Sorry, I can't help
you.

With love,
RJHinds

Originally posted by Taoman
It astounds me first that both yourself and tw fail to acknowledge in any serious way the immense discussion amongst scientists as to the apparent connection of consciousness with the collapse of superposition. a superposition that IS commonly explained as the probabilities of wave equations. Where are these "probabilities"? And where is the superposition? I processes of materialistic evolution, I think you are missing out.

“... It astounds me first that both yourself and tw fail to acknowledge in any serious way the immense discussion amongst scientists as to the apparent connection of consciousness with the collapse of superposition. a superposition that IS commonly explained as the probabilities of wave equations. Where are these "probabilities"? And where is the superposition? ...”

you have just shown from your above statement that you don't really understand anything at all about quantum mechanics.
The rest of your post is flawed because of this.

Originally posted by Taoman
Don't expect me to do your home work. If you don't know about non-locality, or understand things like Bell's Theorem, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle or read up on Alain Aspect whom I mentioned, the discussion cannot proceed intelligently.

The discussion is not proceeding intelligently because you are making stuff up. Where have I said I know nothing about those or that I need you to look them up for me? How do they come into the discussion at all? You act like they are some new strange phenomena. Have you looked at the dates on any of the discoveries of the phenomena you have mentioned?

My beef is that at any point if anyone raises the possibility of a "field consciousness-like" exploration it is immediately dumped aside and disparaged as "mystic" talk.

More and more highly qualified scientists are exploring seriously the nature of quantum field effects and see much similarity with a field of consciousness. Are these too mystic talkers?
You keep contradicting yourself. At one moment you are claiming the scientific community is divided and half of them agree with you about some mystic mind properties, then the next you are announcing that anyone who mentions it is dismissed immediately. So which is it? This is not the first time you have seemingly made these two contradictory claims.

The biggest problem is you don't stick to one topic. You mention in passing a whole lot of different phenomena that you feel 'point' towards something, but you are very unspecific about what that something is or how they point towards it. But the moment someone responds, you start off on another direction with a totally different set of phenomena.

Can't you pick one single phenomena and explain in more detail how that observed phenomena indicates a mystic intelligence or whatever it is you are trying to get at?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“... It astounds me first that both yourself and tw fail to acknowledge in any serious way the immense discussion amongst scientists as to the apparent connection of consciousness with the collapse of superposition. a superposition that IS commonly explained as the probabilities of wave equations. Where are these "probabilities"? And where is the su ...[text shortened]... nd anything at all about quantum mechanics.
The rest of your post is flawed because of this.

A bland assertion without any backup or reasoning. The "Where are?" and the "Where is?" refers to the rather blurry central wave equation aspect of quantum calculations. Of course they are no where to be found in a place are they? But that's all that can be worked with. All we have is a mathematical concept, essentially a construction of consciousness.

This is the only *ahem* "substance" that is dealt with. Neither you nor I can point out any actual particle and never will be able to. You can measure its position or its motion, but because you can never do such measurements together. It is not locatable.
The most common reference in quantum calculations is the term "collapse" but after a century of exploration and research we still have a bunch of unresolved theories, one of which is kept outside the door by most scientists at present because its too "mystical", yet one that offers the simplest resolution to all the unusual behaviour of sub-atomic particles.

Because the concept of a "holistic field-like ground of consciousness" can't be measured, i.e. not in the current mechanistic paradigm, it is automatically ignored and closed to serious consideration on that basis alone.

Yet the particles under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle share this property of being unable to be actually located or measured.
As you should know, they can't be actually located and measured effectively, and not because of a physical or interference reason, but because of the very nature of the wave-particles themselves.

You are exhibiting avoidance by bland disparaging assertion. This is not reason nor science. You have not offered anything yet that seeks to effectively confront why the underlying ground of existence cannot be a field of a conciousness-like nature.


From two famous scientists involved in the quantum discoveries:

"The conception of the objective reality of the elemen-
tary particles has thus evaporated not into the cloud
of some obscure new reality concept, but into
the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents
no longer the behavior of the particle but rather our
knowledge of this behavior."

-Werner Heisenberg.

"The only acceptable point of view appears to be the one
that recognizes both sides of reality—the quantitative
and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical—as
compatible with each other, and can embrace them
simultaneously."

-Wolfgang Pauli

Originally posted by Taoman
The most common reference in quantum calculations is the term "collapse" but after a century of exploration and research we still have a bunch of unresolved theories, one of which is kept outside the door by most scientists at present because its too "mystical", yet one that offers the simplest resolution to all the unusual behaviour of sub-atomic particles.

OK. You have the floor. What is this simplest resolution to all the unusual behaviour of sub-atomic particles?

Because the concept of a "holistic field-like ground of consciousness" can't be measured, i.e. not in the current mechanistic paradigm, it is automatically ignored and closed to serious consideration on that basis alone.
OK, so it cant be measured.
Does it interact with the universe? If so, is this interaction measurable?
Do you have any more description of it other than "holistic field-like ground of consciousness"?
thats a lot of words which don't mean a whole lot to me when strung together like that. "field like" implies a resulting force, but you say it cant be measured. Where does consciousness come in?
Stop being vague and tell us what your real theory is.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The discussion is not proceeding intelligently because you are making stuff up. Where have I said I know nothing about those or that I need you to look them up for me? How do they come into the discussion at all? You act like they are some new strange phenomena. Have you looked at the dates on any of the discoveries of the phenomena you have mentioned?
...[text shortened]... ed phenomena indicates a mystic intelligence or whatever it is you are trying to get at?

Quantum non-locality.

Originally posted by Taoman
Quantum non-locality.

A bit more detail please.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A bit more detail please.

The original purpose of the post was to take issue with simple dismissing of the unproven postulation of a relation of some form of consciousness underlying the ground of existence. The terms are intentionally vague because the the postulation concerns an inherently indefinable nature. I know this indefinability is a difficulty for hard headed defining scientists. I am simply seeking to put my references to this underlying state that is postulated in a similar manner to the initial quantum discoveries. It would not be helpful to discuss the matter with either you or Mr Hamilton in Buddhist terminology.

I am not seeking to prove something, because it cannot be proven. I am seeking to indicate that the relation of consciousness to quantum discoveries has been and still is one of the pursuits of understanding the strange quantum behaviour, one of which I have now twice pointed you to, that indicates a certain mysteriousness to the underlying nature of reality, one aspect among others that scientists have noted is like unto mind, even if they don't agree or hold the view.

I simply say to you both such postulations are not to be so dismissed in an offhand manner.
The following excerpt is from
"The Spectrum of Conciousness", Ken Wilbur.

"As the physicist Eddington exclaimed:
Something unknown is doing we know not what - that is what our theory amounts to. It does not sound a particularly illuminating theory. I have read something like it elsewhere-
''"The slithy toves
did gyre and gimble in the wabe"

And Haldane muttered that "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose."...

Declared Whitehead:
"The progress of science has now reached a turning point. The stable foundations of physics has broken up...The old foundations of scientific thought are becoming unintelligible. Time ,space, matter,ether, electricity, mechanism, organism, configuration, structure, pattern, function, all require reinterpretation. What is the sense of talking about a mechanical explanation when you do not know what you mean by mechanics?"

Originally posted by Taoman
The original purpose of the post was to take issue with simple dismissing of the unproven postulation of a relation of some form of consciousness underlying the ground of existence.

I think the real problem is you don't understand the basic principles of science. The purpose of science it to try to understand the workings of the universe as far as possible. But you claim your hypothesis can never be understood and its workings are inherently hidden from view and unmeasurable and undetectable by scientific methods. Yet you want recognition by science? Why?

The terms are intentionally vague because the the postulation concerns an inherently indefinable nature. I know this indefinability is a difficulty for hard headed defining scientists.
I am sure it is difficult for anyone. I also suspect it is deliberately difficult because you don't want to be pined down and proved wrong.

I am not seeking to prove something, because it cannot be proven.
You seem remarkably sure about this despite knowing practically nothing about it. It sounds suspiciously like the popular "Gods existence can never be proven" claim.

I am seeking to indicate that the relation of consciousness to quantum discoveries has been and still is one of the pursuits of understanding the strange quantum behaviour, one of which I have now twice pointed you to, that indicates a certain mysteriousness to the underlying nature of reality, one aspect among others that scientists have noted is like unto mind, even if they don't agree or hold the view.
The universe in general is mysterious until science helps us get a clearer view. Until science describes something, it is mysterious. However, once science describes it, it is no longer as mysterious, even if we have a hard time visualizing it.

I simply say to you both such postulations are not to be so dismissed in an offhand manner.
And I am not convinced that you have really given any argument as to why they shouldn't.
1. You admit they cannot be proven - and thus they should never really be part of science (Occam's Razor).
2. They do not help us understand anything (you claim they do but have not yet explained how they do).
3. You have given no reasoning as to why such postulations should be considered. There is nothing that suggests them, nothing that confirms them - even worse, you say they are magically immune from investigation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think the real problem is you don't understand the basic principles of science. The purpose of science it to try to understand the workings of the universe as far as possible. But you claim your hypothesis can never be understood and its workings are inherently hidden from view and unmeasurable and undetectable by scientific methods. Yet you want recogn ...[text shortened]... ng that confirms them - even worse, you say they are magically immune from investigation.

It is interesting how you continue to take sentences out of their context , a context you continue to totally ignore and fail to acknowledge or comment on in way whatsoever.

You may interpret my statements about lack of materialistic proof, something that is not the intention of this post, (again you totally ignore same, making up your own rules to the discussion with each post) as avoidant of being found proof-less and therefore "wrong".

It is rather obvious that a materialistic approach reaches its limit in this area. The leading quantum scientist's quotes confirm the indefinabilty and the possibility of the 'psychical' in the discussion, as will any logical reading of the nature of consciousness.

You ignore these statements carefully. I do not accept I have no knowledge in the area, but rather by your lack of tackling the such hard evidence of proven non-locality (in response to you asking me to stick to something specific to discuss), I detect a certain lack of confidence in you on this matter. You keep playing with sentences and semantics, with a good sprinkling of disparagement. Actually I feel Mr Whitehead I have hit a nerve.

What DO you know about the matters I have raised?

I could again now list the factual findings I have pointed you too in support of the idea that consciousness is not to be lightly dismissed as a postulation, but it would be tiresome for all.

At this point I think it would be best to let any readers make their own mind up on the matter.

Originally posted by Taoman
It is rather obvious that a materialistic approach reaches its limit in this area.

It is not obvious to me. You will need to spell it out.

The leading quantum scientist's quotes confirm the indefinabilty and the possibility of the 'psychical' in the discussion, as will any logical reading of the nature of consciousness.
I don't believe that is true.

You ignore these statements carefully.
I do not deliberately ignore them, I just find them too vague to properly comment on. It is not at all clear what you are saying half the time.

I do not accept I have no knowledge in the area, but rather by your lack of tackling the such hard evidence of proven non-locality (in response to you asking me to stick to something specific to discuss), I detect a certain lack of confidence in you on this matter.
I am aware of non-locality, but I fail to see the relevance. You keep saying 'non-locality please comment' but I don't know what comment you are looking for. I know what entanglement is, and I have my own theories as to how it all works, but I am not a quantum physicist.

What DO you know about the matters I have raised?
I know a little about quantum physics, probably more than you, but not a whole lot. What I am not clear about is what 'matters' you think you have raised. You keep jumping from one point to another and never really stick to a single issue long enough for me to figure out what you are on about.

I could again now list the factual findings I have pointed you too in support of the idea that consciousness is not to be lightly dismissed as a postulation, but it would be tiresome for all.
Just give me one factual finding and let us discuss that in detail.