RE: A Conscious Universe
January 29, 2015 at 11:13 am
(This post was last modified: January 29, 2015 at 11:30 am by bennyboy.)
(January 29, 2015 at 9:29 am)Alex K Wrote: In the many worlds interpretation, no wave function collapse occurs, and wave functions are things that actually exist in a sense. The wave and particle phenomena are two ways to describe the behavior of the photon wave function and the measurement apparatus in different experimental settings. I'm not saying that the MWI is true, I'm merely saying that such descriptions exist where we can trace the photon (and all other particles for that matter) back to something unique that is, as they like to say, ontological.Sounds a lot like an idea to me, and anyway how would one produce experimental results with it?
(January 29, 2015 at 10:02 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Firstly, we must remember that there is only evidence (and plenty of it!) in support of the premise that consciousness is a function of brains.That doesn't say much about the framework in which brains exist, which is the question.
Evidence is the collection of information through the senses, and the processing of said information in the mind. But you have not established that the nature underlying the senses (or the mind) is really as you experience it. How would you go about doing that, except for saying, "Seems real, feels real, must be real!"
(January 29, 2015 at 10:22 am)Cato Wrote: Mathematics is a construct of human consciousness for modelling observed reality. . .I don't know if this statement is right or wrong, but it begs the question, since the OP is about the nature of reality.
(January 29, 2015 at 10:02 am)Ben Davis Wrote: While it's true that neurology, studies of qualia etc. haven't yielded comprehensive answers to 'the big 3 questions' yet, they have yielded some answers and those answers have been powerful enough to tell us that we're on the right track.This is a statement of faith, and I find it strange that you've chosen to emphasize it as such. There's no plausible explanation of psychogony right now, nor has any similar problem been solved in the past which gives us reason to think that the question of mind will be solved at any point in the future. Saying science has solved MANY problems, so it will eventually solve THIS problem, is downright Heywoodian.
Quote:All that's needed is time, focussed effort and trust.Which part of the Bible does that come from again?