< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 167 OF 185 ·
|Oct-19-11|| ||quantum.conscious: < yet all of us know that we are subjectively self-aware>|
yes. that is one major aspect of consciousness .
< I think it's an intractable 'problem' for the scientific method. Thus I am open to the idea that 'experience'/ 'self-awareness' is a fundamental property of the Universe, just like the article from Australia suggests>
<Where in the above processes do quantum effects enter?
i will answer this question shortly (to the best of my ability which is limited (in this area) as of know)
- may be today or sometimes in next few days.
|Oct-22-11|| ||jessicafischerqueen: <Doggimus>
Here's a supersicrit unfinished document:
Game Collection: Spielmann: Last Knight of the King's Gambit
Among other things, it's meant to be a shortlist of games suitable for a documentary on <Rudolf Spielmann>.
If you come across any other games you think might be good, please post them in my forum?
|Oct-24-11|| ||quantum.conscious: <visayanbraindoctor: Where in the above processes do quantum effects enter? > |
electrons act as waves - show diffraction pattern of waves when passed through a 'hole' (diffraction rings)
to explain this and other such phenomena that can not be explained using classical physics, quantum theory was forwarded. according to this theory, every particle has a wave function associated with it .
now there are 2 ways to study quantum physics - pragmatist approach and realist approach.
pragmatist approach : this wave function associated with the particle explains the quantum facts observed and successfuly predicts experimental results. that is sufficient. while this theory's great success in explaining the quantum facts and 'unprecedented' predictive power may suggest that it makes contact with some real features of the physical world, such suggestion is irrelevant. not a concern of pragmatic physicist.
|Oct-24-11|| ||quantum.conscious: cont. from previous post:
Realist approach - pragamtist physics is subset of realist physics.
quantum theory's great success in explaining the quantum facts and 'unprecedented' predictive power may suggest that it makes contact with some real features of the physical world.
so, the hypothesis is that wave function is real and at some point this wave function collapses.
|Oct-24-11|| ||quantum.conscious: <cont. from previous posts>|
once one starts from the premise that wave function is real, then the next question is - where/when does this wave function collapse? where/when does wave function become particle? (electron was a wave function; when where it collapsed to become a particle?)
mathematician Von Neumann studied this question meticulously and concluded that logically, human consciousness is the only possible site for wave function collapse.
<in a process of consciousness by which a physical signal of brain becomes an experience in human mind/consciousness>
if consciousness were not there , electron wave function would never collapse; it would exist as a superposition of all the possibilities but no possibility would ever materialize. it would never become matter.
<To be continued.>
|Oct-24-11|| ||quantum.conscious: <visayanbraindoctor>, before i write anymore, please let me know if we are on the same page. are we having the same conversaation or maybe what is happening is you are asking eomething else and i am saying something else.|
|Oct-25-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <quantum.conscious> I am here alright. (",) You are referring to the Copenhagen interpretation of Niels Bohr. I have read on this in the past because of the relation to consciousness. There are other interpretations of quantum mechanics though that do not require consciousness, such as the hidden-variables hypothesis of de Broglie (not sure though, I am not a physicist). |
The simplest to understand is Bohr's interpretation. However, to 'fit' it into reality, as you say consciousness has to enter, as Von Neumann believed. A self-aware consciousness has to collapse the wave functions of all small particles in order to make them into real particles.
This leads to interesting philosophical questions. One is that how can a past exist that contained no conscious entities that can collapse the wave functions of wave-particles therein into 'real' particles. Logically if we follow this line of reasoning, the past can only exist because we in the present are looking at it. The Big Bang can exist only because we or other conscious observers in its future observe the electromagnetic radiation from it.
Another question is who looks at us to collapse our waves into particles? This is the dilemma of Schrodinger's cat and Wigner's friend. Someone conscious has to look at the cat in the box to make it real. Another being has to look at this someone to make him real. And so on in infinite regression. Eventually if you follow the reasoning strictly, a conscious entity outside the Universe has to observe it to make the Universe real.
|Oct-26-11|| ||quantum.conscious: well, <visayanbraindocotr>, i am a 'seeker' who does not have all the answers ,however, let's see if we can have some 'interesting' conversation.|
<This leads to interesting philosophical questions. One is that how can a past exist that contained no conscious entities that can collapse the wave functions of wave-particles therein into 'real' particles.>
so, at the core 'everything' is not matter/energy/wave but consciousness.
does that make sense ?
in other words, the question is : is consciousness an emergent property of universe?
if it is then we have those kind of questions that you asking ,
<visayanbraindoctor>. <who looks at us to collapse our waves into particles? This is the dilemma of Schrodinger's cat and Wigner's friend. Someone conscious has to look at the cat in the box to make it real. >
but if consciousness is not the emergent property of universe but in fact it is consciousness which created the universe then these questions are answered .
then consciousness does not need a body to exist . it is not localized in brain or anywhere else in universe. it is all consciouness. it is everywhere.
|Oct-30-11|| ||WannaBe: Ad hoc committee, see my profile.|
|Nov-02-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <quantum.conscious> If you assume the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, logically you will have to conclude that consciousness is something fundamentally in existence; and is needed to make the universe real. However there are other interpretations of quantum mechanics that does not require consciousness.|
|Nov-02-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <quantum.conscious> I wonder if you are familiar with the Copenhagen interpretation of the double slit experiment? It's one of the most fascinating phenomenon of reality.|
If you transmit a wave (such as light, which is an electromagnetic wave) through a cardboard with two slits, an interference pattern results on the screen behind it. The two resulting waves at the back of the cardboard interfere with each other to produce this classic pattern. The stunner is what happens when one decreases the light intensity to one photon at a time separated in time. Like you beam one photon at a time through the cardboard every hour for several months.
Now if you were to do this with a classic particle such as a bullet, you would only get an equal pile of bullets behind each slit. However, small objects such as photons (light particles) do have wave properties. The stunner is that even if you shoot one photon at a time separated by one hour intervals, you still get an interference pattern. It is as though the photons are communicating to each other through time in order to tell each other to land just so on the screen as to create an interference pattern.
That's just the stunner. Here comes the shocker. If you determine the path of (in effect 'look' at) each photon in flight, say by blocking one of the slits just before a photon goes through, the interference pattern disappears; and you just get a 'pile' of photons behind each slit as though they were like little bullets. It is as though your conscious 'look' at the photon collapses its probability wave so that it acts exactly like a real particle.
In the Copenhagen interpretation, it is your consciousness that allows the collapse of a photon's probability wave into a 'real' particle to occur.
|Nov-02-11|| ||quantum.conscious: <visayanbraindoctor: However there are other interpretations of quantum mechanics that does not require consciousness.>|
yes. in 1980 , i think there were about 8 interpretations (one among them being a neo-realist model which was inspired by einstein's intuition that the attributes are static -"god does not play dice with universe")
and now a days , i think there are about 60 interpretations. all of them leave some questions unanswered.
|Nov-02-11|| ||quantum.conscious: <visayanbraindoctor: The stunner is that even if you shoot one photon at a time separated by one hour intervals, you still get an interference pattern. It is as though the photons are communicating to each other through time in order to tell each other to land just so on the screen as to create an interference pattern.
yes, i know this experiment.
however, mathematically ,i don't know quantum physics very well as of now. but i intend to learn that in future (not in so near future though. however, i am working on it piecemeal. )
|Nov-02-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <quantum.conscious> Historically, the first interpretation of quantum mechanics is the one Bohr advocated- the Copenhagen interpretation. This might be one reason why it is the most often used. I think the other reason is that it looks like the simplest one to comprehend - as long as one assumes that it is consciousness that collapses probability waves into real particles.|
Most sci-fi authors seems to like the multiple universe theory. Every probability occurs through the infinite splitting of the Universe. You therefore get a Multiverse- a lovely setting for the alternate universe genre in science fiction.
|Nov-03-11|| ||quantum.conscious: <visayanbraindoctor: To continue:
<Dr. Deepak chopra, M.D, says so in his recent article
<"If you canvassed a hundred neuroscientists about where the mind comes from, it would be a good bet that 99 would say the brain ..... >
I thought so too, until a patient told me that when his body was unconscious, he himself was floating outside his body looking at the accident scene.
If he (and others) were not hallucinating, such phenomenon cannot be explained by assuming that self-awareness is an emergent phenomenon from neurons firing.
However aside from such out of body experiences (which many would claim are hallucinations), there remains the ability of our 'mind' to experience self-awareness and subjectivity. By its definition subjectivity cannot be tested by an objective experiment; yet all of us know that we are subjectively self-aware. I think it's an intractable 'problem' for the scientific method. Thus I am open to the idea that 'experience'/ 'self-awareness' is a fundamental property of the Universe, just like the article from Australia suggests, and likens it to mass.
<visayanbraindoctor>, in light of this post of yours , i am curious :
what is the process you following to get the answers. ( i sure have a good idea by know by reading your posts like the one i quoted here and also reading your posts which show your interest in intriguing quantum facts. <what i am curious to learn is how motivated/passionate you are to unravel the 'mystery' ,
; to find the answers. and what are the deatails of the process you are following ; if you are following some process in a disciplined , planned way or it is just 'random'...>)
|Nov-03-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <quantum.conscious> It's just that the subjective self-awareness of the human mind is well known; and there is no literature that explains it in terms of neurons firing. |
An interesting fact: Just as most physicists do not actively question how quantum mechanics is interpreted, as long as it works; most Neurologists and Neurosurgeons do not meditate on how subjective self-awareness is generated as long as they can localize where in the Central Nervous System a lesion is located based on the signs a patient exhibits. For instance, if a patient exhibits a decrease in sensorium (disoriented, unable to localize painful stimuli and open eyes), aha... something might be wrong with his thalamus, midbrain, or upper pons! What can be impinging on them? Hemorrhage? Tumor? Uncal herniation? Maybe there's an infarct there? Perhaps just plain alcoholic intoxication? No one really talks about if the patient still is subjectively self-aware.
Anyhow, I don't have answers. We are all seekers here.
|Nov-05-11|| ||quantum.conscious: oops, i had not saved those links and had not copied, pasted them either , <visayanbraindoctor>.|
and now , i see them gone.
is it possible to provide these link again? thnx
|Nov-05-11|| ||quantum.conscious: thanks , <visayanbraindoctor>|
in the same context, here is something of which you perhaps are already aware:
<Tammet's memory, mathematical and linguistic abilities have been studied by some of the world's leading neuroscientists at California's Center for Brain Studies and the UK's Cambridge Autism Research Centre  and have been the subject of several peer-reviewed scientific papers. Professor Allan Snyder at the Australian National University has said of Tammet: "Savants can't usually tell us how they do what they do. It just comes to them. Daniel can describe what he sees in his head. That's why he's exciting. He could be the 'Rosetta Stone'."
Tammet's unusually vivid and complex synesthesia has been widely reported. In his mind, he says, each positive integer up to 10,000 has its own unique shape, colour, texture and feel. He can intuitively "see" results of calculations as synaesthetic landscapes without using conscious mental effort and can "sense" whether a number is prime or composite. >
|Nov-05-11|| ||quantum.conscious: <continued from the above post> so, the hypothesis is :|
mind is not in brain. in fact it is mind that uses brain. (a rough analogy : radio/tv catches the waves and convert them in pictures sounds but it is not tv/radio that created those waves). individual mind can connect to uniseral mind. universal mind has all the knowledge. 'idiot savant' are , through some miracle, able to connect to some part of that universal mind. and access some specific skill without having to learn that skill or needing some effort to use that skill
most of the scholars/artists etc spend years of learning/effort to acquire just a fraction of what 'idiot savants' possess
|Nov-05-11|| ||quantum.conscious: <visayanbraindoctor>, while i read those essays you provided links to, i want to ask you something. [please forgive me if i come across as obtuse , however, i would rather be that than making wrong assumptions :)]|
those 2 essays are written by the same gentleman and i assume that gentleman has an account here at cg.com. right?
|Nov-06-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <quantum.conscious> I am not at liberty to answer..|
|Nov-06-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <unusually vivid and complex synesthesia> I have heard of this phenomenon, although admittedly I have never encountered such a person. |
<quantum.conscious: mind is not in brain. in fact it is mind that uses brain. (a rough analogy : radio/tv catches the waves and convert them in pictures sounds but it is not tv/radio that created those waves).>
Fascinating! I will keep this in mind.
<however, mathematically ,i don't know quantum physics very well as of now. but i intend to learn that in future >
I guess that implies you are a mathematician or a physicist.
|Nov-06-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <quantum.conscious> IMO the only chess player who qualifies as an idiot-savant for chess is Capablanca. He was said to behave with such open frankness as to be almost childish at times, and from my studies of his games and annotations, he regularly makes idiotic comments and could not explain how he analyzed or come up with solutions.|
|Nov-06-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Regarding the mathematics of the different interpretations of quantum physics; I have read somewhere that Bohr's interpretation is the simplest and has fundamentally only one assumption- consciousnesses- that can collapse probability waves into 'real' particles. All the others carry a heavy baggage of multiple assumptions and complicated mathematics.|
|Nov-06-11|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <if consciousness is not the emergent property of universe but in fact it is consciousness which created the universe then these questions are answered .>|
I agree that indeed a lot of unanswered questioned would be answered.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 167 OF 185 ·