RE: A Conscious Universe
February 5, 2015 at 4:13 pm
(This post was last modified: February 5, 2015 at 4:56 pm by ManMachine.)
(February 4, 2015 at 11:42 pm)Surgenator Wrote:(February 4, 2015 at 6:36 pm)ManMachine Wrote: Sorry for the repeat reply my 'full edit' took a bit longer than I expected.
You defined 'things' as distinct from processes, like this;
"A process REQUIRES interactions, things do NOT."
I'm saying 'things' DO require interactions at a QM level constantly. I am asserting your definition of a 'thought process' as distinct from a 'thing' is entirely spurious at a QM level.
A 'thought process' is no different from any other process and every 'thing' is made up of Quantum processes that are continuous (a state of quantum flux). I then challenged you to identify anything that is not made up of quantum processes in order to validate your definition and prove your point.
As for that electron...
"... are you expecting the electron to disappear from existence at any moment?"
As I said above, I am, because that's exactly what they do.
MM
If your defining "quantum flux" as constantly interacting, then what is it continously interacting with? Consider an electron out in space far from away from everything. It is too far away to interact with anything. Does the electron stop existing? QM tells us no. For us to know it is there, we would need to interact with it. The interaction is not what makes the electron exist, it exist there independently of anything interacting with it. I don't know where you got the idea a QM particle is in a state of quantum flux.
Even if I grant you that processes and things are equavalent, a thought is orders of magnitude more complex of a process than the interactions a two QM particles have. So you reducing thought to a QM particle would still be fallacy of division.
It might be helpful to clear a couple of points up.
To begin I have never said that the output from a process cannot be different (or have different properties) from the inputs, this is not a fallacy of division. What I have said is that the output can never be anything other that what it can be, even if we don't understand what that is.
What I am saying is that you cannot invoke difference (in this case between 'thought' and 'thing') by suggesting a thought can be anything other than a electrochemical/biochemical action on an electrochemical input that produces and electro/biochemical output, which is all it can be. And because it is just that then it is no different from any other 'thing' on a QM scale. If you are not suggesting that then you are agreeing with me, which Chas pointed out so long ago.
Nowhere have I suggested a process cannot produce an output that has different properties from its inputs, which clears me of the fallacy you keep wrongly accusing me of.
Your point about lone electrons is completely irrelevant, all quanta exist in pairs, which they interact with, for example an electron is always paired with a positron. This interaction has been famously described by Einstein as 'spooky action at a distance'.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
