Skip to comments.ON A RESONANCE THEORY OF THOUGHT AND SPIRITUALITY
Posted on 08/02/2003 4:43:59 PM PDT by betty boop
click here to read article
Well, matter has rest mass, energy doesn't.
Now to your previous statement.
If the hypothetical message can be decrypted, then it exists.
Then you have admitted that something that is not embodied "exists". It is of no consequence whether or not the key "exists" since any message intended for decryption can be decrypted.
It is also relevant that you consider "material" things contingent upon knowledge.
I have strong doubts about this, js1138. If one studies the laws of nature, is one studying something "physical?" What about mathematical reasoning -- is doing math "physical?" Or are these things exercises of faith?
Science stops at explaining the quantum eraser. At that point it just says, well that is the way it is.
This seems extraordinarily reductive to me, js1138. I can think about all kinds of things, even things with which I have no apparent "embodied interactions" at all.
That's a subject of debate. We probably have a better record of the history of math than any other kind if history, but aside from counting, math is pretty self-referential. It is true because we manipulate the axioms and operators to make it true. Rather the ultimate tautology.
That's my opinion. I admit to being over my head here, so I'm going to bail out of the discussion at this point.
Check out my links, and if you get the opportunity, check out some of the work being done in cognitive neuroscience. I don't see how you can write a book about consciousness without studying what science has learned about it.
But materialist science has encountered a "road block" in the study of "consciousness or the physical basis of consciousess." Indeed, it put that roadblock there itself: It takes the physical basis as the "whole show." Let me give an example:
Let's say we hook up a brain to an EEG machine, and then have our subject listen to Beethoven's 9th. For materialist science, the readout on the EEG tape is the only thing "real" about that conscious experience; for the tape records transitions of our subject's particular brain states (neuronal firings, electrochemical responses) on hearing the symphony.
But has the EEG in any way, shape, or form captured the conscious experience of the subject, listening to the symphony? Does it capture the "feeling," the emotion the symphony inspires in him at all?
Consciousness is about the feeling/emotional experience of our subject. This cannot be found on the tape at all, which can only trace the patterns of neuronal firings in the brain, not how the symphony was actually experienced by our subject.
Science won't get very far with consciousness until it recognizes that subjective experience, consciousness, thought, is not reducible to matter or is in any way identical with it. The point is consciousness is of a different order than matter: It is fundamentally immaterial -- and yet universal all the same.
Nice summary, bb.
That is simply untrue. It may be the only thing available to that particular investigator at that particular time, but science builds mosaics over time out of bits and pieces of data. the roadblock you assert simply does not exist.
It is precisely the questions you ask that motivate the scientist, but the scientist exercises self-discipline in speculating about the big picture.
I think you are mistaking the thing for talking about the thing. Nothing is entirely "reducible". The question is whether it is understandable.
You get away with statements like this because the problem of understanding brains is extremely hard, and the work is in its infancy.
There are extremely interesting things being discovered. For example it is possible using MRI, to tell whether someone learned a language before age six or after age twelve. This may seem trivial, but who would have guessed the age of language learning makes an observable difference in brain structure?
It sounds as if you are lapsing into word games again. Betty is saying she doubts that science will (understand) explain consciousness. You assert that it will. It is for you to establish that and not just make up potentialities.
I have given you evidence that science has reached a point at which it has run out of explaining power. At that point science states, well that is the way it is. Yet the event occurs.
Doubt all you want, it cannot explain the quantum eraser. It can only demonstrate it. Can you explain to me what causality is?
Well, then tighten it up or just say the obvious, science fails to do what you assert it does.
There have been many times in the past that "science has reached a point at which it has run out of explaining power" -- and then explanations were subsequently found.
For example, the behavior of blackbody radiation was an unexplainable mystery in the late 1800's... Until Planck explained it by proposing the foundations of quantum theory, which explained not only blackbody radiation, but countless other things as well, such as the photoelectric effect.
You seem to be trying to imply that the existence of some "we don't knows" in science today represent some sort of final "end point" or brick wall for the scientific method, but on the contrary what we learn from the past few centuries is that science has an excellent track record of converting one day's "unexplainable" phenomenon into tomorrow's common knowledge.
I'd maintain that judging from past performance, it's safer to bet that science *will* resolve today's mysteries eventually than that it *won't*.
I once read a book written in the early 1900's which argued that since the manner in which the Sun produced massive amounts of energy was unexplainable by any known scientific principle (and, the author implied, beyond explanation), it was proof of the existence of God since He must be causing the Sun to continuously create new energy in a "supernatural" manner. Needless to say, before long the method of the Sun's energy production was explained after all, as a physical process, by advancements in science.
It's a risky business to prematurely declare science to be at a final dead end -- countless people in history who have done so have ended up with egg on their faces.
You now have the opportunity to explain the delayed choice quantum eraser.
The Psychic Staring Effect: An Artifact of Pseudo Randomization , from Skeptical Inquirer magazine : September/October 2000, which makes a pretty good case that Sheldrake's "results" are a consequence of the poorly randomized sequences he chose to use for his test cases.
Short form: When choosing "when to stare and when not to stare" in his tests to see if subjects could "sense" when the "starer" was staring at them or not, Sheldrake used poorly randomized sequences which "spread out" the staring periods more than would be the case in a truly random test. The problem with this is that it is well known that when humans (i.e. the "starees" in his tests) guess things "at random", their guesses are more "spread out" and include more "alternations" than is the case for truly random sequences.
Thus, while human-style guessing will score no better than chance against *uniformly* random events, they will score *better* than chance against any sequence (like Sheldrake's trials) which are "random" in ways biased towards "human style" guessing (e.g. "spread out" trials).
For example, if people are asked to guess a random arrangement of 3 white balls and 7 black balls, their guesses will more often look like "BBWBBWBBWB" (with the 3 white balls "spread out" across the 10 slots) than they will the equally likely arrangement of, say, "BWBWWBBBBB", where the white balls happen to have come out more "clustered".
So when asked to guess "test" sequences of balls which happen to be not truly random, but instead are arranged to be more "spread out" than would be the case by chance, their guesses are considerably more likely to get "hits", BY PURE CHANCE, than you'd expect by simple guessing, and it would give the false *impression* that they had somehow "seen" the sequences they were trying to guess (by ESP?).
When Marks and Colwell repeated Sheldrake's test protocol but with *purely* random test sequences, the positive "results" evaporated, and there was no indication that test subjects could successfully "sense" when they were being stared at.
Do you even know what the delayed choice quantum eraser is? Just describe it.
You now have the opportunity to reread my post until you understand its point, then reply again in a manner which actually addresses it. Your response makes it quite clear you missed it entirely.
Hint: My point was that the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon today is in no way a safe indicator of whether it is likely to remain unexplained in the future.
But to address your tangential question, read this: A Logical Interpretation of a Delayed-Choice, Quantum Eraser Experiment. Hmm, maybe your fixation-du-jour isn't quite as mysterious as you're trying to make it out to be.
Do you even know what the delayed choice quantum eraser is? Just describe it.
Are you repeatedly missing the point by mistake, or on purpose?
It's just silly for you to repeatedly badger multiple people for an explanation of something when their very point is that lack of particular explanations today is pretty useless when it comes to the issue at hand, which is whether *future* explanations may or may not be forthcoming.
Correct me if I'm wrong somewhere, but the conversation seems to have devolved to:
You: X can't be explained today, science is at a dead end on that topic, thus it can't/won't be explained tomorrow.
Us: Even if it can't be explained today, that doesn't necessarily mean that future explanations won't be found.
You: Oh yeah??? Explain it now!
You: Explain it now!
But if it'll stop your badgering, the delayed choice quantum eraser is an experimental setup involving a photon emitter, two slits, a receiving crystal which splits incoming photons into paired particles, a counter, and a sensor. It is set up in such a way that it appears that fiddling with one of the paired particles after results have already been recorded changes the recorded results (oversimplification, but that's the crux of it).
Like many quantum results, the outcome is counterintuitive, but even these results are entirely in accordance with the predictions of quantum theory. Personally, I'd say that they're thus explained just fine. The fact that there's no macro-world "common sense" description for the results doesn't mean it's not "explainable", just that standard English and everyday human intuition are inadequate to the task, since neither was formulated to deal with the unusual (to us) types of things which occur at the quantum level. It's like trying to talk about the plot of a time-travel movie: you quickly tie yourself in knots trying to use everyday words like "now" in ways beyond their usual scope.
But the results can be explained just fine in the language of mathematics.
And you entirely missed my point. Hint:talk is cheap. You still have the opportunity to explain the quantum eraser, or at least elucidate the explanation problem.
And mathematics does not necessarily describe the universe. The experiment violates causality.
Seems the self-described home run hitters have stepped up to the quantum mechanical plate. And struck out. Without swinging. Appeals to my perverse sense of humor ...
In what sense did the link that Ichneumon posted not explain the experiment?
It explained nothing more than the reason interference even appears. The path lengths from the slits to the screen are what "causes" the interference. Did you read the original paper?
Materialist science denies the "central concept," the I AM. So it's hardly surprising that they don't look for it. But then, if it can't be measured, materialist science can't do anything with it anyway.
Yet science itself -- physics preeminently -- is telling us that consciousness is an extraordinarily critical phenomenon that needs to be understood if science is to make further progress in discovering the deepest laws of nature. The "Integrative Science" approach -- which is multidisciplined -- looks like it may be able to produce some real insights into this universal phenomenon.
I am sorry to learn that you have pre-judged this as "New Age" claptrap. Certainly Prof. Raman's article has a strong Buddhist flavor to it. But basically, IMHO that paper points only to the tip of the iceberg. You have to look to the Grandpierre article if you want to get a scientific picture of the "depth."
Thank you for writing, UnChained. Except as noted, I much admired what you wrote.
Especially note figures 3 and 4 and equations (10) on page 3.
The subject of consciousness will be explored by science, the issue is whether science will have blinders on, only looking to material explanations. The opportunity is upon us to steer the debate to integrative science; IMHO, failure to do so would leave the public with a metaphysically naturalist worldview and thus work against all Judeo/Christian theology (among others.)
I'll go through it.
But neurons may be far more complicated than mere switches....
More complicated, indeed. Plus given the issues of quantum superposition and entanglement, it seems we need to account for consciousness at the level of the macroscopic brain, as well as the acoustical, electromagnetic, and quantum influences coming from outside the organic brain itself.
Grandpierre postulates that different processes of consciousness and different levels of the mind are structured by acoustical, electromagnetic, and quantum fields which are themselves products of a universal vacuum field that is the foundation of the Universe. He speculates that this ultimate foundational field is the primary consciousness (or information field) of the Universe.
Electrons, possibly photons, are hypothesized as "material carriers of thought." Grandpierre writes:
"The different vacuum waves couple us in a different scale to our bodies and brains, while the electromagnetic and electron waves present couplings between between our environment, our brains and local neural processes. These couplings to the different scales of the outer world represent couplings between our different mind levels, simultaneously. In this context it is important to note that these outer sources of information -- the Earth, the Sun, the stars, and the Universe as a whole -- do show a whole range of generalized organic processes.... [e.g., the ultrasensitive response of the Sun to changes in the planetary cores of its satellites].
"In my essay (1995a) I argued that every element of the Universe is a kind of double-pyramid consisting of hierarchichal levels; i.e., conscious mind, deep-mind, genetic-mind, cosmic mind, inner world pyramid of human being), Earth, Solar System, Galaxy, Universe (outer world-pyramid of a human being). The difference between the organisms of the Universe is only what is outer and what is inner for them, but the levels in their pyramids are similar, consiting of the same constituents. In this context it is interesting to note that our calculations show that the different organisms interact with the same range of universal fields, but their sizes determine what is "outer" and what is "inner" for them, and which are the long and short wavelengths compared to their physical sizes."
Thanks so much for the great link (to Stuart Hameroff) mfulstone. He and Roger Penrose look like they've found a very promising approach to understanding consciousness. To me, the really interesting thing to ponder is that these local processes of mind/brain coupling are being executed in universal fields....
To me, the really interesting thing to ponder is that these local processes of mind/brain coupling are being executed in universal fields....
While people may turn blind eyes as to what is most important (even when shown with blazing specific brilliance in our history --and continuingly so) it is inherently difficult to ignore what is most important after that: human beings.
Agreed, unspun. On my reading of Dr. Grandpierre, it turns out that human beings are indispensably important to the Universe, to the Cosmos.
I agree that Roger Penrose has a very interesting approach to the issues at hand, recognizing the physics of consciousness.
I'm not sure where man would be in relative importance, but certainly neither at the top nor at the bottom.