Quantum fields and consciousness (split from Nothing and The Creation)

[Ant Sinclair]

dimreepr

"Maybe you should read about Maimonides before we explore 'the enlightenment".

Maybe you should read Irreducible by Federico Faggin. 

 

 

 

Edited February 13 by Ant Sinclair

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Maybe you should read Irreducible by Federico Faggin. 

Why? What point are you trying to make?

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Ant Sinclair said:

dimreepr

"Maybe you should read about Maimonides before we explore 'the enlightenment".

Maybe you should read Irreducible by Federico Faggin. 

 

 

 

Why? What does this video tell us? 

All I know about this Frederico Faggin guy is he is 83 and after a distinguished career in electronics he has had the silly idea that because a quantum state contains information about itself that we cannot access by observation, then it must be conscious. This apparently on the basis that consciousness involves perception of "qualia" which are not objectively observable from outside.

This is nuts. But as he's 83, he is most likely contemplating his death and trying to construct some science to suggest his mind can survive that. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Ant Sinclair said:

"Maybe you should read about Maimonides before we explore 'the enlightenment".

Maybe you should read Irreducible by Federico Faggin.

Maybe you should make your own sound argument based on established (i.e. confirmed) science and evidence.

[MigL]

F Faggin was an excellent engineer in the early semiconductor days, when engineering problems were actually physics problems.
He's had a distinguished career at Fairchild, Intel, Zilog and Synaptics, so I would not dismiss anything he says without consideration.
However ...
If your body and brain are just 'the drone' and sense-of-self and consciousness are manifestations of a quantum field, why do some brain injuries impair your sense-of-self ?  Why do you lose consciousness from a blow to the head ?

How are injuries to the body affecting the quantum field ?

[Gees]

14 hours ago, Ant Sinclair said:

dimreepr

"Maybe you should read about Maimonides before we explore 'the enlightenment".

Maybe you should read Irreducible by Federico Faggin. 

 

 

 

Ant Sinclair;

Thank you for showing us this video -- it is absolutely brilliant. Because I am no scientist, I am going to have to study the video three or four more times, so that I can try to understand how he explained his idea with science's terminology. For myself, I came to similar conclusions about consciousness by observing, using logic, and studying nature -- more of a philosopher's study.

And yes, we can prove that a tree is conscious as long as one does not expect it to have a brain and thought, as that is not consciousness. The brain is what produces the rational aspect of mind and thought, which is a product of consciousness -- it is not consciousness.

I don't understand why people do not see the obvious comparison with Maimonides thoughts, as I saw it immediately.

Thanks again,

Gee

11 hours ago, MigL said:

However ...
If your body and brain are just 'the drone' and sense-of-self and consciousness are manifestations of a quantum field, why do some brain injuries impair your sense-of-self ?  Why do you lose consciousness from a blow to the head ?

It helps me to think of the brain like I would an antenna. If the antenna is damaged or broken, so is the picture (conscious thought) that it produces.

First there is conscious awareness (the unconscious aspect of mind) which feeds into the brain (antenna), then the brain produces digital thought -- the rational aspect of mind. In my understanding.

11 hours ago, MigL said:

How are injuries to the body affecting the quantum field ?

I don't know this, but suspect that F Faggin understands this part. I have more studying to do.

Gee

[Ant Sinclair]

Gees, if you enjoyed that video then you should watch this one where Federico discusses his ideas with Sir Roger Penrose, I am in Federico's camp as in regards to the quantum fields are conscious knowing what the magnetic-type rings of my 2016 thread are actually made of to justify my alignment with him.

As both Sir Roger and Federico appear to agree there are missing equations as regards to wave function collapse, if such a process actually exists.

 

 

Edited February 14 by Ant Sinclair

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Gees said:

we can prove that a tree is conscious as long as one does not expect it to have a brain and thought

The tree, or the individual listening to / reading your “proof?”

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Gees said:

I don't understand why people do not see the obvious comparison with Maimonides thoughts, as I saw it immediately.

Please explain, bc I'm pretty sure Maimonides thoughts weren't about quantum.

 

 

1 hour ago, Ant Sinclair said:

Gees, if you enjoyed that video then you should watch this one where Federico discusses his ideas with Sir Roger Penrose, I am in Federico's camp as in regards to the quantum fields are conscious knowing what the magnetic-type rings of my 2016 thread are actually made of to justify my alignment with him.

As both Sir Roger and Federico appear to agree there are missing equations as regards to wave function collapse, if such a process actually exists.

 

 

Here we go again, Dunning and Krueger writ large, you don't know enough to know why you don't understand, so you feel no shame in displaying your ignorance...

[Ant Sinclair]

Dimreepr, why are you quoting nonsense in an attempt to belittle me? I know very well how little I know, a shame you don't know the same. The reason I know the quantum fields are conscious is because the Rings in my 2016 thread are partly constructed of DNA and hence why "God" is present in everything in our world.

You're so ignorant I'd wager you wouldn't believe it is possible for an individuals mind to influence the quantum fields to then have a causal effect on your wellbeing.

Here’s an article on your Dunning and Kruger rubbish.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dunning-kruger-effect-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/

Working with Nuhfer, we found that unskilled students are pretty good at estimating their own competence. In this study of unskilled students who scored in the bottom quarter, only 16.5% significantly overestimated their abilities. And, it turns out, 3.9% significantly underestimated their score. That means nearly 80% of unskilled students were fairly good at estimating their real ability – a far cry from the idea put forth by Dunning and Kruger that the unskilled consistently overestimate their skills.
DUNNING–KRUGER TODAY
The original paper by Dunning and Kruger starts with the quote: “It is one of the essential features of incompetence that the person so inflicted is incapable of knowing that they are incompetent.” This idea has spread far and wide through both scientific literature and pop culture alike. But according to the work of my colleagues and me, the reality is that very few people are truly unskilled and unaware.
The Dunning and Kruger experiment did find a real effect – most people think they are better than average. But according to my team’s work, that is all Dunning and Kruger showed. The reality is that people have an innate ability to gauge their competence and knowledge. To claim otherwise suggests, incorrectly, that much of the population is hopelessly ignorant.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Ant Sinclair said:

I know very well how little I know, a shame you don't know the same.

I don't see how you can say this, and then say this:

Quote

The reason I know the quantum fields are conscious is because the Rings in my 2016 thread are partly constructed of DNA and hence why "God" is present in everything in our world.

This "reason" uses none. You're misusing the definition of "conscious", stretching it to fit a situation it's not meant for, so it means nothing. You made up these "rings", constructing them from DNA and God. 

You know very well how little you know, yet you make these claims with total conviction, with your whole chest, so I don't think you know how much you don't know. Don't you realize ANYBODY can make things up like this, and that's why we have science to filter out all the unreasonable, subjective, and false explanations?

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Theorist12345?

6 though 10 is also important... 🙂

 

2 hours ago, m_m said:

The theory that quantum fields are conscious.

How do you propose to test that theory?

I know, my theory is, we can have a magical chat with the universe, that I can tell the kids as a metaphorical story; that I hope they grow into a meaningful understanding of the universal...

[Gees]

On 2/14/2025 at 6:07 AM, Ant Sinclair said:

Gees, if you enjoyed that video then you should watch this one where Federico discusses his ideas with Sir Roger Penrose, I am in Federico's camp as in regards to the quantum fields are conscious knowing what the magnetic-type rings of my 2016 thread are actually made of to justify my alignment with him.

I probably would enjoy it as I have read some of Penrose's work, but have too much on my plate already. I will check it out later after I contend with this current project of Federico's. Most people have no idea of how massive the study of consciousness actually is. They see it as a study of the brain, maybe physics and cosmology, a little religion and a little philosophy. In reality consciousness study affects all of religion, probably 80%, or more, of philosophy, and most if not all branches of science -- a massive study indeed. Federico's theory touches on too many of these separate ideas, so my mind was reeling just trying to keep up. Then I realized that Federico probably does not even see all of these implications because he does not study consciousness and so does not realize all of the leads to other branches of science, etc.

I started to take notes while watching the video, but half way through I quit as there were just too many points to address and no context for the explanations that are necessary in order to understand and address those points. In order to give context to many of those points, I would have to write a damned book -- and that book would only be about what I think I know, not what I am still trying to figure out. So I am going to select a few of the ideas to discuss that his theory clarifies or enhances.

Federico starts out with a bang saying that consciousness is not in the body and compares the experience with that of using a drone. 

This very much aligns with my thinking. Years ago, I was corresponding with a physics professor, who explained to me that thought has no power. He said, "If you take the greatest thoughts known to man and write them down or save them on a disk then wait a day, a year, or a hundred years; when you check them, you will find that they have done nothing. Thought has no power, no force, no ability to do anything." He was right. Federico finds similar conclusions about AI.

So I spent some time breaking down consciousness into parts. I found that knowledge, memory, and thought are digital, work within time and space, and are internal and private -- I know my thoughts/you know yours. But emotion, feeling (not tactile), and awareness are not digital, they are analogue/fluid (emotion does not work within time and space but actually ignores time) and these are external and shared -- unless we intentionally hide our feelings they show. This is why emotion can cause bonding, because it works between us -- it works between life. It is a force. It is external.

It was not long before I realized that the digital part of consciousness was the rational aspect of mind -- what most people think of as consciousness. The analogue part of consciousness was the unconscious and it is ruled by emotion. So why did we ever decide that digital thought was consciousness? I think there were two reasons. The first is because we control thought and the rational mind, whereas the unconscious is strictly reactionary so we have very little control over it. And Descartes did not help when he stated, "I think; therefore, I am." So did that mean if I don't think, then I am not? Yes. That is exactly how it was interpreted, so infants, deaf people, the mentally handicapped, and many indigenous people (having an unknown language) were treated as though they were NOT. The reasoning here is very simple; if you do not have language, then you have no way to prove you think, therefore, you were not considered conscious. This means that all other life was also not conscious, not aware, not alive? Science has been systematically changing this belief as it proves consciousness in different species, but is not willing to state categorically that if something is alive, then it is conscious. (The thought thing again.)

So to start off one must understand that Federico is not talking about thought, he is not talking about the brain, he is  talking about the unconscious aspect of mind, which is ruled by emotion, feeling, and want. This is what consciousness, or awareness, derives from. Where is the unconscious? No one knows. It does not seem to have a location. We have no idea of it's size or parameters. We know that it connects to other life forms because it could not promote bonding if it did not and this is where psychic phenomenon originates and it is where "God" ideas originate. Jung could tell us some about the unconscious and "God" ideas, but Matt Blanco could tell us about the six or seven levels (stratums) in the unconscious that he discovered through math while he was looking for a logic in the unconscious. He found it. He realized that the unconscious was thought to have no logic, but this was because it ignored time. (Yes. This has been clinically proven and is the reason why childhood trauma can affect an entire lifetime and why PTSD happens.)  Logic, "this therefore, that" is part of logic, and the "therefore" requires time, so this logic does not work in the unconscious. Blanco found that the deeper levels of the unconscious used another method to evaluate, but it has been a while since I read it, so I am going to have to look it up. 

There is so much more, but this is hopefully a good start and all I can do now. Tomorrow I will try to address some of the other points made in the video.

Gee

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Gees said:

Most people have no idea of how massive the study of consciousness actually is. They see it as a study of the brain, maybe physics and cosmology, a little religion and a little philosophy. In reality consciousness study affects all of religion, probably 80%, or more, of philosophy, and most if not all branches of science -- a massive study indeed.

Bullshit, they haven't even decided what the actual question is, whomsoever they are?

5 hours ago, Gees said:

I probably would enjoy it as I have read some of Penrose's work

Which bit's did you understand?

I only ask bc it reminds me of the time I, arrogantly, said to my little sister "let me read your PhD (microbiology) paper" to which she said "what's the point, you won't understand any of it" 😉; the wink stung the most...

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Any discussion of consciousness requires a definition, because claiming a tree is conscious likely means that definition is so watered-down as to be almost meaningless. 

And posting videos without supporting information is not within the rules. If you can’t give us a summary there’s no confidence you’ll be able to engage in discussion of the subject.

 

[Gees]

On 2/14/2025 at 6:35 AM, iNow said:

The tree, or the individual listening to / reading your “proof?”

You don't really want an answer to this question, do you? If you actually do want an answer, then please restate your question so that I know what you are asking.

Gee

On 2/14/2025 at 7:09 AM, dimreepr said:

Please explain, bc I'm pretty sure Maimonides thoughts weren't about quantum.

I did not state that Maimonides thoughts were about quantum; what I stated was that there was an "obvious comparison". I was talking about recognition -- not terminology.

Maimonides equated the God of Abraham to what philosophers refer to as the Necessary Being. Federico called his study quantum physics, and I relate this concept to the unconscious aspect of mind; but we were all talking about the same thing -- recognized the same thing. Remember, Maimonides said, "that science, the growth of scientific fields, and discovery of the unknown by comprehension of nature was a way to appreciate God."

Gee

[Gees]

On 2/16/2025 at 2:15 PM, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Any discussion of consciousness requires a definition, because claiming a tree is conscious likely means that definition is so watered-down as to be almost meaningless. 

 

I have seen a lot of different threads on consciousness in this forum with a whole lot of definitions -- so which definition would you like? I only stated that a brain and thought were not part of a tree's consciousness, but science has proven that trees are aware, that they communicate, that they work to preserve themselves, do you need more than this? If you want me to show that trees have human consciousness, then you are being beyond reasonable as trees are not human.

On 2/16/2025 at 2:15 PM, swansont said:

And posting videos without supporting information is not within the rules. If you can’t give us a summary there’s no confidence you’ll be able to engage in discussion of the subject.

I didn't post the video, but would like to discuss it. It would be difficult to summarize the video as there is so much that it touches on. It explains how many of the theories of consciousness that I could not accept before, may actually have some support to them. It also seems to give a valid explanation of how ecosystems self-balance and how evolution may be actuated. I was fascinated.

Gee

[iNow]

On 2/14/2025 at 12:18 AM, Gees said:

we can prove that a tree is conscious as long as one does not expect it to have a brain and thought

On 2/14/2025 at 6:35 AM, iNow said:

The tree, or the individual listening to / reading your “proof?”

2 hours ago, Gees said:

please restate your question so that I know what you are asking.

When you strive to “prove” that trees are conscious, does your success require that your audience have neither brain nor ability to think?

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Gees said:

I did not state that Maimonides thoughts were about quantum; what I stated was that there was an "obvious comparison". I was talking about recognition -- not terminology.

You were talking bollox, as usual, but feel free to explain why a curator of knowledge (Maimy, as his friends refer to him) would, in any way, refer to something he had no knowledge of? 

3 hours ago, Gees said:

I have seen a lot of different threads on consciousness in this forum with a whole lot of definitions 

And you haven't understood any of them... 🙄🤒🖖

I'm sorry @Gees, please don't neg me... 🙏🤣

Edited Thursday at 12:23 PM by dimreepr

[studiot]

Just now, Gees said:

I have seen a lot of different threads on consciousness in this forum with a whole lot of definitions -- so which definition would you like? I only stated that a brain and thought were not part of a tree's consciousness, but science has proven that trees are aware, that they communicate, that they work to preserve themselves, do you need more than this? If you want me to show that trees have human consciousness, then you are being beyond reasonable as trees are not human.

 

Just a human thought about consciousness.

 

We are now beginning to probe and perhaps understand the interactive relationships between plants, particularly trees, and soil mycelium.

Since this is new territory there is no reason to suppose that such relationships can be set in the same terms as ones we understand much better and know far more about.

So I must agree with Gees.

I suggest we need new terminology, concepts and all the apparatus for these new lines of enquiry.

Until these are established we can expect heated discussions set in inappropriate terms.

[dimreepr]

38 minutes ago, studiot said:

We are now beginning to probe and perhaps understand the interactive relationships between plants, particularly trees, and soil mycelium.

Since this is new territory there is no reason to suppose that such relationships can be set in the same terms as ones we understand much better and know far more about.

So I must agree with Gees.

Really???

I get that no man is an island in and of itself, and a tree is an intricate part of any continental shift, but really???

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Until these are established we can expect heated discussions set in inappropriate terms.

This being one of them???

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Gees said:

I have seen a lot of different threads on consciousness in this forum with a whole lot of definitions -- so which definition would you like? I

It’s not about what I’d like. It’s about having a definition so the thread can have a definition to point to, rather than the chaos that arises when people use different ones, resulting in discussions equating unequal things, like plant consciousness with human consciousness 

[Gees]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

When you strive to “prove” that trees are conscious, does your success require that your audience have neither brain nor ability to think?

No.

Gee

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You were talking bollox, as usual, but feel free to explain why a curator of knowledge (Maimy, as his friends refer to him) would, in any way, refer to something he had no knowledge of? 

I suspect that "Maimy" had more knowledge than you are aware of -- clearly he had more understanding.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And you haven't understood any of them... 🙄🤒🖖

I'm sorry @Gees, please don't neg me... 🙏🤣

I did not put the neg rep points on your post. I don't know who did.

Gee

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, Gees said:

No.

Evidence would come next. I eagerly await your proof. 

[Gees]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s not about what I’d like. It’s about having a definition so the thread can have a definition to point to,

It had a very clear definition, "Nothing and The Creation". The thread was about the source of life of consciousness of the universe of everything. This "source" was "nothing", but managed to create everything. A neat trick that has captured the imaginations of millions for millennia. I suspect that you read the words "Nothing" and "Creation", assumed that the thread was about "God" because it was in the religion forum, became offended when science was brought in to possibly validate "God", and split the thread to speculations so science could defend itself. If I am wrong, I certainly apologize. 

It might be worthwhile for members to remember that "God" is not an actual fact -- "God" is an interpretation. I am looking for other interpretations and so is this thread.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

rather than the chaos that arises when people use different ones, resulting in discussions equating unequal things, like plant consciousness with human consciousness 

So you think that "plant consciousness" and "human consciousness" are unequal? I suppose it could look that way even when comparing, say an elephant and a tadpole. But on the other hand both the elephant and tadpole are equally alive when compared to a rock. Most of this is a matter of perspective. I tend to have a holistic view of problems that I try to address, so when I think of consciousness, I remind myself that all consciousness is simply awareness. The differences lay in what the specimen is aware of as there are thousands of levels of awareness.

While browsing in the Biology section, I found a thread about consciousness and bees. One of the members there mentioned that it could be considered that the Poles (north and south) were aware of each other as proven by the force between them. Interesting. I like this idea and accept the possibility of it -- this is just another example of the beginnings of consciousness. There is no reason to accept religion's interpretation that a fully conscious being started the Universe. It could have been force that evolved just like everything else did.

Gee