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

[joigus]

Isn't this just another case of an unfortunate inversion of the whole and the parts? In more modern terms, trying to explain the components in terms of the emergent?

An elephant doesn't explain biology. Biology is purported to explain the elephant. That's how it looks from my ongoing process of learning anyway.

Don't glorify consciousness. Most important things that keep you alive happen while you're anawares. Maybe thanks to you being anawares. I thank my stars for my hippocampus. I don't have to think again every time I ride a bicycle, or tie my shoelaces.

'Tis a consumation devoutly to be wished, I've been told --having a ninety-something percent of biological processes running the business of me, without me knowing.

Rookie mistake...

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Gees said:

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. 

You’re wrong. It’s better not to speculate about others’ motivations; it really says more about you.

I split the thread because quantum fields was not part of the OP, and neither was consciousness, but “invisible spirit” was

As far as science being brought in, well, this split was to determine if there’s any science involved, rather than just some word salad.

3 hours ago, Gees said:

 So you think that "plant consciousness" and "human consciousness" are unequal?

Yes.

3 hours ago, Gees said:

I suppose it could look that way even when comparing, say an elephant and a tadpole.

Neither if those is a human, and neither is a plant.

3 hours ago, Gees said:

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.

Indeed. Which means even under a simple definition of consciousness as awareness, not all is equal. Since you’ve conceded my point, I guess we’re done?

 

[MJ kihara]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Which means even under a simple definition of consciousness as awareness, not all is equal.

Humans,trees and 'stone'...not all is equal...+1.

We like( us humans)comparing everything with ourselves..so egocentric.

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

We like( us humans)comparing everything with ourselves..so egocentric.

This may be true, but if animals could think this way, don't you think they'd be even more focused on themselves? Humans may be egocentric, but we also have the imaginative capacity to put ourselves in another creature's place. 

[swansont]

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Humans,trees and 'stone'...not all is equal...+1.

We like( us humans)comparing everything with ourselves..so egocentric.

True. You could substitute a handful of other animals, but since this is a discussion involving humans, it reduces a variable. (we know we are self-aware and can make decisions, for example)

[Gees]

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

True. You could substitute a handful of other animals, but since this is a discussion involving humans, it reduces a variable. (we know we are self-aware and can make decisions, for example)

Are you moving the goal posts? I know the original thread was NOT exclusively about humans -- it was about nothing v creation.

Gee

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Gees said:

Are you moving the goal posts? I know the original thread was NOT exclusively about humans -- it was about nothing v creation.

Gee

We’re not in the original thread, are we? It was split because of the discussion of different topics. I mentioned human as a contrast to tree consciousness that you brought up, and why we need a definition.

[Gees]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

You’re wrong. It’s better not to speculate about others’ motivations; it really says more about you.

I split the thread because quantum fields was not part of the OP, and neither was consciousness, but “invisible spirit” was

And what, pray tell, do you think that "invisible spirit" actually is? Either you know and you made an honest mistake, or you don't know and you corrupted the thread through ignorance. Which is it?

Gee

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

We’re not in the original thread, are we? It was split because of the discussion of different topics. I mentioned human as a contrast to tree consciousness that you brought up, and why we need a definition.

So it was split because of the discussion of different topics and yet you continue to introduce "different topics". Let me get this straight -- this thread is about consciousness, human consciousness, and science. Right? It is not about Nothing v Creation.

So if I want to discuss that video, I will have to copy it back to the original thread? Won't you just hi-jack it again?

Gee

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

This may be true, but if animals could think this way, don't you think they'd be even more focused on themselves? Humans may be egocentric, but we also have the imaginative capacity to put ourselves in another creature's place. 

It's a good thing we are in the speculations sub-forum because your above comments are definitely speculations.

Gee

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Gees said:

And what, pray tell, do you think that "invisible spirit" actually is? Either you know and you made an honest mistake, or you don't know and you corrupted the thread through ignorance. Which is it?

Gee

I don’t know; I didn’t use that phrase (except to quote it), Ant Sinclair did. You should ask them.

“Quantum” didn’t show up until a comment by MigL, and quantum consciousness followed after (>25 posts in), so I don’t think there’s a legit argument to be made that it was part of the OP.

And I’m pretty sure that both quantum fields and consciousness are a matter of scientific discussion, and also that you’ve presented a false dichotomy here. 

Is your little tantrum over yet?

[Phi for All]

52 minutes ago, Gees said:

It's a good thing we are in the speculations sub-forum because your above comments are definitely speculations.

Is it a good thing you spend so much time in a place you obviously detest? It certainly hasn't made you any better at discussion.

[Gees]

18 hours ago, joigus said:

Isn't this just another case of an unfortunate inversion of the whole and the parts?

What whole? What parts? I am not sure what you are asking.

18 hours ago, joigus said:

In more modern terms, trying to explain the components in terms of the emergent?  

An elephant doesn't explain biology. Biology is purported to explain the elephant. That's how it looks from my ongoing process of learning anyway.

Are you saying that I am trying to explain what caused reality, (the components) of the Universe, by studying reality, (the emergent) of the Universe? 

You mean like reality does not explain philosophy. Philosophy explains reality.

18 hours ago, joigus said:

Don't glorify consciousness. Most important things that keep you alive happen while you're anawares. Maybe thanks to you being anawares. I thank my stars for my hippocampus. I don't have to think again every time I ride a bicycle, or tie my shoelaces.

I am very aware of the unawares -- I tend to call them the unconscious aspect of mind. Do you know that your hippocampus does more than hold your memories? It is kind of important to your emotion and I suspect your instincts. Do you know that the unconscious aspect of mind is reactionary because it is controlled/activated by emotion/feeling/want?

I have spent a good bit of time talking to science people, who will explain to me that they know all about hormones, instincts, and how these things regulate life and keep us going. But they don't know all about these things, because they still do not understand the balance, nor do they understand what pushes and allows evolution. I want to learn about these things. I suspect that the video on quantum fields has some clues as to how that works. I haven't found anyone else that seems to have a clue about the self-balancing of ecosystems or the reasons why evolution works the way it does. I am not buying the "God" idea, the Intelligent Designer, magic, coincidence, or luck.

18 hours ago, joigus said:

'Tis a consumation devoutly to be wished, I've been told --having a ninety-something percent of biological processes running the business of me, without me knowing.

Rookie mistake...

The rookie mistake would be in disrespecting those biological processes to the point where we disrupt them. Many of us already know that the Dust Bowl that destroyed the middle of the United States was caused by killing off millions of buffalo and getting rid of the buffalo grass in an attempt to kill off the American Indian. We are finding evidence that we have disrupted many ecosystems and are trying to fix the problems. This is good, but there is more.

The balance also works within species. A man goes to war and fights raising his testosterone levels. Directly after the war, he takes the first person that he can find and shoves himself into her, and creates new life. Life is taken and life is given by the same abundance of a hormone. This is not coincidence, this is balance and why rape has always followed war. When a woman has a baby, she turns from her husband. Why? Hormones -- because it is necessary to ensure the next generation. She becomes devoted to the child for the first few months -- she also doesn't get much sleep. So what turns her back to her husband? Nursing. While feeding the baby, her breasts swell, her womb shrinks, she is attractive. She feels loving as she is feeding his baby -- and the bonus is that she can't get pregnant while nursing full time. So sex is a freebee. Replace nursing with a bottle and there is more pain for her while her milk dries up, and her womb is slower to resume it's former shape, sex is scary because no one wants another baby this soon. Mom and Dad are trading off feeding the baby and no one is getting sleep. When Dad walked by Mom, she used to go "mmm", but now she goes, "Eew" because her hormones tell her that only the baby smells good. Dad takes a shower, puts on deodorant, and wonders what is wrong. Everyone is grouchy. Does it always work this way? No. All warriors do not rape, but many do, enough that it is a known phenomenon. Hospitals are trying to get women to bond with their babies and to nurse them because we are already seeing the results of the foolish decision that pushed bottles on nursing mothers in order to get them into factories in WWII.

The balance also works within societies and cultures. When a baby is nursed, it actually has to seduce it's mother's body in order to get the milk flowing and does this by smiling, cooing, stroking her, and mouthing her nipple -- baby has to give to get. A bottle-fed baby only needs to yell and cry for what it wants. Think about it. After three generations, if you can't see where this has influenced our culture, you are not paying attention.

It is clear to me that life could not have evolved independently. It is all connected. We are all connected. I suspect that all reality is connected. I would like to learn how.

Gee

[joigus]

5 minutes ago, Gees said:

What whole? What parts? I am not sure what you are asking.

The whole here would be the salient aspects of life. In this case, consciousness. The parts would be quantum fields.

6 minutes ago, Gees said:

Are you saying that I am trying to explain what caused reality, (the components) of the Universe, by studying reality, (the emergent) of the Universe? 

You mean like reality does not explain philosophy. Philosophy explains reality.

No. You're trying to explain a salient aspect of a narrower reality (humans and how they perceive the world) by making it an attribute of the most fundamental things we know (quantum fields). By the same token you could venture to say quantum fields might have recollections, free will, bad temper, and so on.

It doesn't seem a very promising line of reasoning. If it happened to be, you would be asked to substanciate it very carefully

16 minutes ago, Gees said:

The rookie mistake would be in disrespecting those biological processes to the point where we disrupt them. Many of us already know that the Dust Bowl that destroyed the middle of the United States was caused by killing off millions of buffalo and getting rid of the buffalo grass in an attempt to kill off the American Indian. We are finding evidence that we have disrupted many ecosystems and are trying to fix the problems. This is good, but there is more.

The balance also works within species. A man goes to war and fights raising his testosterone levels. Directly after the war, he takes the first person that he can find and shoves himself into her, and creates new life. Life is taken and life is given by the same abundance of a hormone. This is not coincidence, this is balance and why rape has always followed war. When a woman has a baby, she turns from her husband. Why? Hormones -- because it is necessary to ensure the next generation. She becomes devoted to the child for the first few months -- she also doesn't get much sleep. So what turns her back to her husband? Nursing. While feeding the baby, her breasts swell, her womb shrinks, she is attractive. She feels loving as she is feeding his baby -- and the bonus is that she can't get pregnant while nursing full time. So sex is a freebee. Replace nursing with a bottle and there is more pain for her while her milk dries up, and her womb is slower to resume it's former shape, sex is scary because no one wants another baby this soon. Mom and Dad are trading off feeding the baby and no one is getting sleep. When Dad walked by Mom, she used to go "mmm", but now she goes, "Eew" because her hormones tell her that only the baby smells good. Dad takes a shower, puts on deodorant, and wonders what is wrong. Everyone is grouchy. Does it always work this way? No. All warriors do not rape, but many do, enough that it is a known phenomenon. Hospitals are trying to get women to bond with their babies and to nurse them because we are already seeing the results of the foolish decision that pushed bottles on nursing mothers in order to get them into factories in WWII.

You lost me here. What does all this story about nursing and rape, and the smell of babies, have to do with quantum fields?.

 

[MJ kihara]

10 hours ago, Gees said:

I want to learn about these things. I suspect that the video on quantum fields has some clues as to how that works.

Have you ever considered quantum fields to be an emergent phenomenon?..... The aurora of consciousness...mmmm...

[studiot]

Is anyone aware that linking QM and consciousness is embedded in Sean Carroll's version of the "many worlds interpretation" ?

Something Deeply Hidden

Sean Carroll

[MJ kihara]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

"many worlds interpretation" ?

How is it related to consciousness, what's the link?

[studiot]

Just now, MJ kihara said:

How is it related to consciousness, what's the link?

It's a book.

Remember them ?

[MJ kihara]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

It's a book.

Remember them ?

I haven't read the book... synopsis from Wikipedia..In this book, Carroll examines the reasons why people misunderstand quantum mechanics and advocates a version of the many-worlds interpretation, while objecting to the views often grouped together as the Copenhagen interpretation.

....many world interpretation supports a universal wave function..if am not wrong, that means any other wave function Is independent;that means no collapse to the other...if so, there are many worlds for each wave function....to me these increases  confusion...how do this 'many worlds' interact?

Me am of the opinion that there might be one universal wave function that collapsed to many wave functions(not many worlds)...these many wave functions interact through wave function collapse...after all,so far it's generally accepted that it was a single Big bang.

Therefore I regard this..

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Is anyone aware that linking QM and consciousness is embedded in Sean Carroll's version of the "many worlds interpretation" ?

as an over statement .

[studiot]

With how much respect should I view a person who says

Just now, MJ kihara said:

I haven't read the book

and then says this

 

Just now, MJ kihara said:

Therefore I regard this..

as an over statement .

Have just looked at

Just now, MJ kihara said:

synopsis from Wikipedia.

of one small part of the book and gained an entirely false impression ?

Edited Saturday at 09:28 PM by studiot

[MJ kihara]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

With how much respect should I view a person who says

and then says this

 

Have just looked at

of one small part of the book and gained an entirely false impression.

Since you have read the book....I earlier asked you to offer the link,many worlds interpretation and consciousness...your response 

 

4 hours ago, studiot said:

It's a book

 

[studiot]

Just now, MJ kihara said:

Since you have read the book....I earlier asked you to offer the link,many worlds interpretation and consciousness...your response 

Don't be ridiculous.

Links are for websites; I provided adequate reference in conventional form for you to be able to identify the book.

If you were to read it I can only assume you would find out that Carroll states many times exactly the opposite of the false impression you have gained from a synopsis I have not seen.

Edited Saturday at 09:42 PM by studiot

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

..many world interpretation supports a universal wave function..if am not wrong, that means any other wave function Is independent;that means no collapse to the other...if so, there are many worlds for each wave function

No, each world has one universal wave function. If multiple worlds had the same wave function they would be in identical states. That’s contrary to the notion of the many-worlds premise. 

39 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

....to me these increases  confusion...how do this 'many worlds' interact?

They don’t interact.

Quote

Me am of the opinion that there might be one universal wave function that collapsed to many wave functions(not many worlds)...these many wave functions interact through wave function collapse...after all,so far it's generally accepted that it was a single Big bang.

That’s not really how wave functions work.

 

10 hours ago, studiot said:

Is anyone aware that linking QM and consciousness is embedded in Sean Carroll's version of the "many worlds interpretation" ?

Something Deeply Hidden

Sean Carroll

A link is not the same as saying QM fields are conscious

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

 

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Don't be ridiculous.

Links are for websites; I provided adequate reference in conventional form for you to be able to identify the book.

If you were to read it I can only assume you would find out that Carroll states many times exactly the opposite of the false impression you have gained from a synopsis I have not seen.

We are not getting each other correct...I meant the link between consciousness and many worlds interpretation....as in Oxford dictionary; link..a relationship between two things or situations, especially where one affects the other.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

..many world interpretation supports a universal wave function..if am not wrong, that means any other wave function Is independent;that means no collapse to the other...if so, there are many worlds for each wave function

Expand  

No, each world has one universal wave function. If multiple worlds had the same wave function they would be in identical states. That’s contrary to the notion of the many-worlds premise. 

We are talking about the same thing only that it has been paraphrased differently.

 

[studiot]

Just now, swansont said:

A link is not the same as saying QM fields are conscious

I didn't say it was.

You need to read the whole book to understand that he has one main point to make which is that there is only one quantum field that encompasses the entire universe and everything in it. Further that this one field describes everything and answers all the problems we encounter if we try to split it in separate fields.

It follows that if anything or any one in the universe is conscious, however you define that state, it is described by the universal field.

Nor did I say whether I agreed or disagreed with it.

I was simply pointing out its existence and where to find it for anyone interested enough to look.

Edited Saturday at 11:06 PM by studiot

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

....to me these increases  confusion...how do this 'many worlds' interact?

They don’t interact

I expected the same answer, therefore,the source of confusion..how do you know about something else without interacting with it?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Quote

Me am of the opinion that there might be one universal wave function that collapsed to many wave functions(not many worlds)...these many wave functions interact through wave function collapse...after all,so far it's generally accepted that it was a single Big bang.

That’s not really how wave functions work

Really? How does it work in a nutshell?

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, studiot said:

I didn't say it was.

You need to read the whole book to understand that he has one main point to make which is that there is only one quantum field that encompasses the entire universe and everything in it. Further that this one field describes everything and answers all the problems we encounter if we try to split it in separate fields.

It follows that if anything or any one in the universe is conscious, however you define that state, it is described by the universal field.

Nor did I say whether I agreed or disagreed with it.

I was simply pointing out its existence and where to find it for anyone interested enough to look.

That’s not what this thread is about.

9 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

I expected the same answer, therefore,the source of confusion..how do you know about something else without interacting with it?

Why do you expect to? MW is an interpretation; it’s not testable.

 

9 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

Really? How does it work in a nutshell?

Start a thread on the topic. This one is about the alleged consciousness of quantum fields 

19 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

We are talking about the same thing only that it has been paraphrased differently.

I’m not sure that’s the case