mooeypoo

Says you. and while it's interesting and great to read, it's still not proven, not referenced, and hence non scientific. Saying QM explains anything you want it to explain just because you want it to explain it, is not science. It's wishful thinking. I am not saying you're wrong - I don't know if you're wrong or right - I'm saying this isn't science until you explain yourself *scientifically*.

Yes, this I know, but from this fact to saying that we know how the brain works is quite a leap.. knowing how something works means knowing how to fix things (which we are, as far as I know it, quite lacking in many aspects), among other things.. knowing how the neurons work is great, but there's still a way to go to state we understand the brain's functioning. That said, I am by no means saying it's not possible to understand it. I actually believe it will probably be relatively soon.. but.. am I wrong to say that we're not there just yet? Wait, we can infer based on what we know, but that doesn't mean that we understand the brain, how it works, or can state it is operating by QM. Again - isn't this the same as saying that a cockroach is operating by quantum mechanics because the sub molecular particles do? QM is not my strong point, but it's very interesting, so don't take my questions as anything but curiosity.. ~moo

That's not what I've read, but this is very interesting. From what I know we don't know yet how the brain operates completely -- there are a lot of missing data, like certain accurate connections between physical brain and psychological behavior. Explain the complete behavior of the brain, please (plus references, please) -- that's something I'd love to learn.

Oh, yes, I know, I'm just asking where the "majority" of the assumptions lead at the moment.. Which is considered more plausible?

I'm not sure, but isn't the entire speculation about dark energy pointing out towards the possible "neverending expansion" of the universe? I know those are two competing theories, I'm just not sure where the speculations lead atm... anyone?

Who started the thread? Who proposed that consciousness is with X and/or Y properties? Those are claims. Your point is to convince us of a theory - one which I find fascinating, but lacking evidence -- all the while expecting us to prove ourselves right before we can treat yours? That makes no sense. You are speaking of consciousness in about 3 different threads, and in *none of them* have you spoke, explained or proven what consciousness IS. Stop dancing around the subject, Graviphoton, I know you're better than that. ~moo

John, this sounds very interesting, I'm going to get a bit more into it after my final today, but one thing gets my skeptical lightbulb flashing -- you reference nothing, and I couldn't find other resources that relate to the same conclusions you made. Is this a work-in-progress theory that is pending publication? Was this published in a peer-review magazine? Do share. I'm not saying that the lack of publication is a proof against your theory, but it will help seeing more sources for this. ~moo

You are the one making the claims! Let's make this very simple: (1) Proving a theory wrong does not make another right. The world is not made up of only two options. (2) Whoever is making a claim is the one who has the obligation to prove his statements. You are the one making the statements, plus theory, hence you are in need of proving. (3) Changing subjects, stating theories are lovely, cool or plausible just because you think they are do not make your theory valid. (4) Shifting the blame (saying "but you don't do this either!") is, as I said in (1) and (2) not the right path towards proving or posting a new theory. It detracts from the actual process of scientific analysis, and to be perfectly honest, it annoys the heck out of people. So. Stop dancing around (again) and start putting substance into your claims. Alternatively, you can just stop making claims. ~moo

You need to prove plausibility, Graviphoton. You haven't done that, hence B is NOT NECESSARILY truer than A, and cannot be used as a premise for a theory without that theory being bunked out for lack of proper basis. It's not what you WANT to believe, it's what you can explain, prove and predict. We work by the scientific method, not wishful thinking. ~moo

No, no, no. You are the one stating a theory, you are the one with the burden of proof. I stated nothing, I didn't even state, yet, what I believe about consciousness. ~moo

The problem is not what you propose, the problem is that this specific proposition - which is unproven, and as you can clearly see, controversial (hence, it's in *need* of proof and explanation) is what you use as a *premise* for your theory. So you can't just propose, that's not enough. You need to prove this premise before you can go on to the rest of the theory. And to continue on the OTHER theories you have on the forums about consciousness and mind and quantum physics and time dimensions, etc etc etc. The first primary problem is your initial premise in each of those theories. You have yet to have proven it. ~moo

Hypothesis or no, there's no such thing. Hypothesis needs to be based on something, otherwise it's not a hypothesis, it's a random sentence. Also, I am having a lot of troubles understanding what you are saying with the UFOs and/or what relation it has with mind-power.. or with baked containers. I understand you not native english speaker, neither am I, but do try better to explain yourself, because you're making very little sense. ~moo

You should know. That makes it so. Graviphoton, my posts are not there to bash you, they're there to debate with you. Repeating the same statement I countered doesn't help anyone. If I am wrong, prove it. Not quite, but i'm willing to go with it. It's still irrelevant, though, because that doesn't prove consciousness to be in the realm of quantum physics. You explained but not proven, hence it's still an open question. Also, since there is no unified theory that confirms what you are saying, it seems most of the scientific community disagrees with you. That makes the burden on proof on you. Prove it. Dr Kaku is a professor at my college,actually. I am going to take QM with him at some point, so I'll ask him what he thinks of a tree being an illusion. Regardless, you have yet to prove your statements, you just seem to try and explain what you think and give reasons to it, instead of referencing and proving your theory that QM is the theory that explains it all. If I am to explain, predict and plan how a missile of X mass is going to travel when I throw it off a moving plane, I need to use general mechanics. As much as the missile might or might not be an "illusion", Quantum Physics will NOT help me explain or predict its behavior. Hence, QM is not explaining everything. You are still lacking proof. I will continue answering a bit later, I am late for work, but again -- you need to first prove consciousness existing (you keep avoiding it.. the fact you BELIEVE it so, does not MAKE IT so) and then that it can be explained and predicted by QM as opposed to other theories. There is no unified theory yet, Graviphoton. You can't refer to QM as if it's a unified theory, certainly not without a HUGE proof. Which will earn you a Nobel Prize most likely, by the way. ~moo

Reference, references. Who says that? Give examples, so we can have an intelligent conversation where I check who they are and perhaps am convinced you are right. References... References. References..!

They're all almost the same, though.

They do obey cause and effect, just a different type, hence quantum mechanics. And to say that consciousness and mind follow quantum mechanics is to come out of a premise that consciousness follows the rules of quantum mechanics, which would make it (1) physical (prove it..) and (2) the size of single particles (prove it..) You are still remaining with the necessity to explain and prove what consciousness is before you can state and prove it works by quantum mechanics. A tree exists, it is a physical object, and yet it does not "obey" quantum mechanics in the broad sense. You cannot explain a tree through quantum mechanics. You can explain the particles that make up the molecules that make up its cells. But not the tree. Prove consciousness' existence. Prove it is physical and can be measured. Prove it abides by quantum mechanics as opposed to by general mechanics. Then we can continue. ~moo

That's not proof, it's an idea. A nice one, I like it. I disagree, but I like. I'm gonna think about it better after some sleep, I'm sure, so I can probably answer better. But it's still just an idea, not a proof, so as far as the debate goes on, you still can't take "consciousness as a physical property" as a premise without exposing your theory to some major bunkness. Other than that, I suggest you stop opening a bazillion threads with the same subjects. Flooding the forums with the same idea is confusing, annoying, and detracting from the seriousness of your theory. ~moo

Another one!? Geesh.

As far as I understand it, the throat isn't the problem, the stomach and liver are, and the force-feeding isn't very pleasant, to say the least.

The post was originally posted int he wrong thread, though it seems that Graviphoton is having quite a field day on the speculation forums with the same idea and different threads. It was a mistake posting it there, I meant to post it here, but regardless, it seems to fit both threads, and if I have a feeling it will fit the third one as well. To summarize (I'm reposting anyways) -- Graviphoton, you are in dire need to explain and prove what Consciousness is before you do anything with it as a theory. Consciousness is an ABSTRACT concept that many people have a problem with its definition. To form a theory of how it operates you need first to explain what it is, how you describe it, that it is POSSIBLE to measure it using physical theories and instruments, and only then explain how it is related to spacetime or math. It seems that I was confusing the two threads (is it just me or are they both the same principle?) - so I took off the quotes and my specific answers to the quotes, so I won't confuse anyone else. Other than that, though, it's the same post - only in the correct thread. -------- REPOSTED and EDITED from the other thread (correct thread this time, sorry) -------- Uhm, I am going to "barge in" a bit, but I've been following the debate on this thread for a while through the weird math equations (where you guys completely lost me) and I have to say I don't quite get what we are arguing about. I think you are mixing a bunch of subjects, as is the title of this thread, and I think that you need to explain this more before we can get to the "crux" of your theory and examine its validity. The problem here is that you are jumping from philosophical abstracts to physical concepts and mixing the two up. It might be that I misunderstood you, but that is all the more reason that you need to go back to the beginning and explain the base of your theory again. For that matter, consciousness is an abstract concept with an abstract, non-specific, controversial meaning. Quantum physics is a physical theory that describes the behavior of particles in the "tiny" level. No more. Some movies and films think it "sexy" to introduce time travel, self-improvement and dimensional woowoo into the theory, because it's very hard to understand and it does deal with things we don't usually see as "normal", but that doesn't mean it's part of the theory. It seems to me that you debate here a link of consciousness, AI and the mathematical application of consciosness and some Quantum Mechanics. There is a very big problem with that, however: you haven't proven what consciousness *IS*. No amount of math - correct or otherwise - can prove a statement that is, in itself, moot. Let me empasize by raising this idea: Claim: Female green unicorns can jump over a truck. I prove it with math, as is not very hard and only demands general mechanics to show the necessary speed, acceleration and solve the equations to show that it works mathematically. And there would be no doubt that my math would be correct. But there are a few fundamental problems here that I must address before going into the math - one that if I don't address, the math is utterly irrelevant and void: (1) I need to first prove that Unicorns exist. (2) I need to prove that there are green female unicorns. (3) I need to know what green female unicorns are in order to know how they behave and act physically. (4) I need to prove they can run and jump. [edit/add] (5) I need to prove I can measure it. [/add] Only after I do these four stages, can I start talking about my theory about jumping green female unicorns seriously. Only then, we can start analyzing the math and find errors or corrections. Before then, the math is moot. The entire idea is meaningless. Graviphoton - Consciousness is an abstract. It is not a physical property or object. Physicists, Philosophers and Metaphycisits, along with AI-developers, Computer scientists and even theologians, argue about its meaning. You must first do these stages to have your theory reach the level of checking its mathematical application: (1) Define consciousness. (Not that simple) (2) Prove a consciousness exists. (Many people disagree.) (3) Prove it is a physical property that can be measured by physical concepts like mathematical theory and quantum theory. (4) Explain and prove that consciousness "acts" and "runs by" quantum physics. Then, and only then, can you start talking about how the math supports your theory. Mathematics is supporting physical theories, not vice versa. Math has a lot of "games" to it that you can manipulate and twitch and get to some fun applications but they are meaningless - and specifically, they are not connecting QM to abstract-notions - just because you switch numbers around. Equations need to have meaning. Please put meaning into yours, before we start with the math. ~moo

Uhm, I am going to "barge in" a bit, but I've been following the debate on this thread for a while through the weird math equations (where you guys completely lost me) and I have to sy I don't quite get what we are arguing about. Or debating. In fact, I don't quite understand how we jumped into arguments about math when as far as I could see the premises and structure of the theory (which comes before the mathematical application of a theory) is not yet fully explained. Let me first refer back to the OP: Graviphoton, please start referencing your sources, it is quite unfair you expect people to do the work for you. You are referencing a theory from someone else, and you need to give the proper references so those of us who don't know what that theory is don't have to start googling everything and hoping that we find the correct one that you are refering to. Plus, not referencing is plagiarism. So... I found this: http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html Which I hope is what you are referring to. When you suggest a new theory, the burden of proof is on you. Part of that is referencing and citing correctly, so we analyze the theory, and not spend our time arguing about whether or not the sources we found are the sources you mean. Do the work. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I think you are mixing a bunch of subjects, as is the title of this thread, and I think that you need to explain this more before we can get to the "crux" of your theory and examine its validity. The problem here is that you are jumping from philosophical abstracts to physical concepts and mixing the two up. It might be that I misunderstood you, but that is all the more reason that you need to go back to the beginning and explain the base of your theory again. For that matter, consciousness is an abstract concept with an abstract, non-specific, controversial meaning. Quantum physics is a physical theory that describes the behavior of particles in the "tiny" level. No more. Some movies and films think it "sexy" to introduce time travel, self-improvement and dimensional woowoo into the theory, because it's very hard to understand and it does deal with things we don't usually see as "normal", but that doesn't mean it's part of the theory. It seems to me that you debate here a link of consciousness, AI and the mathematical application of consciosness and some Quantum Mechanics. There is a very big problem with that, however: you haven't proven what consciousness *IS*. No amount of math - correct or otherwise - can prove a statement that is, in itself, moot. Let me empasize by raising this idea: Claim: Female green unicorns can jump over a truck. I prove it with math, as is not very hard and only demands general mechanics to show the necessary speed, acceleration and solve the equations to show that it works mathematically. And there would be no doubt that my math would be correct. But there are a few fundamental problems here that I must address before going into the math - one that if I don't address, the math is utterly irrelevant and void: (1) I need to first prove that Unicorns exist. (2) I need to prove that there are green female unicorns. (3) I need to know what green female unicorns are in order to know how they behave and act physically. (4) I need to prove they can run and jump. [edit/add] (5) I need to prove I can measure it. [/add] Only after I do these four stages, can I start talking about my theory about jumping green female unicorns seriously. Only then, we can start analyzing the math and find errors or corrections. Before then, the math is moot. The entire idea is meaningless. Graviphoton - Consciousness is an abstract. It is not a physical property or object. Physicists, Philosophers and Metaphycisits, along with AI-developers, Computer scientists and even theologians, argue about its meaning. You must first do these stages to have your theory reach the level of checking its mathematical application: (1) Define consciousness. (Not that simple) (2) Prove a consciousness exists. (Many people disagree.) (3) Prove it is a physical property that can be measured by physical concepts like mathematical theory and quantum theory. (4) Explain and prove that consciousness "acts" and "runs by" quantum physics. Then, and only then, can you start talking about how the math supports your theory. Mathematics is supporting physical theories, not vice versa. Math has a lot of "games" to it that you can manipulate and twitch and get to some fun applications but they are meaningless - and specifically, they are not connecting QM to abstract-notions - just because you switch numbers around. Equations need to have meaning. Please put meaning into yours, before we start with the math. ~moo Remark: I'm sorry, I meant to post this in the other consciousness thread, but it's relevant to this one too, with the exception of the math.

Isn't Eugenics a "pretty name" for a sort of "scientific rationalization" for racism? This is a real question, not an attempt to degrade a thread, btw. P.S: I did a google search to see what Eugenics refers to today, and found something interesting. I know it's Wikipedia, but it does raise some interesting ideas to modern applications of Eugenics (though, I still get a bit of a bad feeling using that word) that might answer the question of "when is eugenics morally justified": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Dor_Yeshorim If used to prevent genetic diseases in babies or in the next generations, I'd say that is morally justified. I would try and find another word for it than Eugenics, even for the feeling of it, but.. I guess that does it for the moment. ~moo

Peer review has no personal-attack intention to it, it's strictly analysis of a theory. The counter-points made are not against you personally, they're against the validity of the theory. Your theory failed the peer review, not you. You just failed to see it. ~moo

Let me put it this way: We presented points that if left unchallenged, are obliterating your theory. The proper response is either: (1) Wow. My theory is bunk. Thank you for helping me realise that. (You're welcome) (2) Hmm. I will think of the points, do some research, and come up with valid counter-points, to show that my theory is still valid. Since you did NEITHER, I have to say that according to the available claims and the counter claims - which by your own admission, the lack of response mean you don't know (or didn't have time.. wow.. well, I'd make time for claim that make your theory void) - hence, the theory is, at the moment, void. Aboslutely void. Until you come up with something that changes that. But whatever it is, it needs to answer the points we asked you to answer, not some random points you think you are comfortable answering. That's what I meant when I said you are dancing around the subject and trolling. And yes, that is being dishonest and unfair. And it's not doing your theory any justice, either. Scientific theories go through a process called "Peer Review", where scientists try to obliterate the theory using science, proof and logic. The purpose is not to humiliate or bash anyone, it is to make sure that the theory has "feet" to stand on -- if the "disproving" peer review process fails, and the theory remains WELL BASED despite counter-claims, and can answer them well, then it is considered a *valid theory*. Whether the scientist proposing the theory has or don't have the time to answer, or all the answers to supply, there is ONE and a SINGLE result to peer review failure: No scientific theory will remain valid after failing peer review. Welcome to the club, my friend, you just failed peer review. You have two options now: Re-examine the points of failure and strengthen the theory so it ANSWERS them (and perhaps becomes valid), or dropping the theory for lack of evidence. In other words: Either stop wasting our time, or start being serious. ~moo

What about disease prevention?