Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: A Conscious Universe
February 4, 2015 at 8:59 pm
(February 4, 2015 at 8:43 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: I'm so sorry. I could not help myself. 
That'll be the beans.
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)
Posts: 1114
Threads: 28
Joined: June 13, 2011
Reputation:
18
RE: A Conscious Universe
February 4, 2015 at 9:13 pm
(February 4, 2015 at 8:59 pm)ManMachine Wrote: (February 4, 2015 at 8:43 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: I'm so sorry. I could not help myself.
That'll be the beans.
MM I did eat some pinto beans and brown rice today.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: A Conscious Universe
February 4, 2015 at 11:42 pm
(February 4, 2015 at 6:36 pm)ManMachine Wrote: (February 4, 2015 at 1:10 pm)Surgenator Wrote: I don't know what you mean in perpetual quantum flux. Are you saying show me that an electron is still an electron at some later time? Or are you expecting the electron to disappear from existence at any moment?
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.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: A Conscious Universe
February 5, 2015 at 2:22 am
(February 4, 2015 at 11:42 pm)Surgenator Wrote: 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. When an electron is not interacting, it appears as a wave. When this wave interacts, it appears as a particle. Does the electron really change or is it just the interaction that changes the perception? Is it a particle, wave or something we are yet to understand? Answer those questions and we will see you in the headlines.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: A Conscious Universe
February 5, 2015 at 1:03 pm
(February 5, 2015 at 2:22 am)IATIA Wrote: (February 4, 2015 at 11:42 pm)Surgenator Wrote: 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. When an electron is not interacting, it appears as a wave. When this wave interacts, it appears as a particle.
Ahhh ... no. That is incorrect. A guassian-wave-packet is a good representation of an electron out in free space. When the wave-packet interacts with a barrier, it still remains a gaussian-wave-packet (techniquely two superpositioned gaussain-wave-packets). At no point did it go from wave to particle or back.
Posts: 1571
Threads: 179
Joined: October 14, 2010
Reputation:
35
RE: A Conscious Universe
February 5, 2015 at 1:21 pm
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: A Conscious Universe
February 5, 2015 at 1:43 pm
(February 5, 2015 at 1:21 pm)orogenicman Wrote: FYI. Here are some articles on recent research into consciousness:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyw...sciousness
http://www.newscientist.com/search?doSea...sciousness
Damn, I don't have a subscription and don't have the money to buy one. 
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
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)
Posts: 28644
Threads: 114
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: A Conscious Universe
February 5, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Posts: 3620
Threads: 22
Joined: January 19, 2015
Reputation:
30
RE: A Conscious Universe
February 5, 2015 at 4:31 pm
(February 5, 2015 at 4:29 pm)rasetsu Wrote: ![[Image: dafuq-did-i-just-read-meme.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-kn1wIvJyxQ0%2FUVF5GADVCTI%2FAAAAAAAABmg%2Fx78h02_ksTA%2Fs1600%2Fdafuq-did-i-just-read-meme.jpg)
After an in-depth revision, I can confirm that most of them are in fact words.
|
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
