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

[studiot]

Just now, swansont said:

That’s not what this thread is about.

Then I will leave it to those who understand it.

Good night.

[Gees]

On 2/28/2025 at 4:36 PM, joigus said:

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

First, what do you mean when you say "consciousness"? Second, Federico (in the video) mentioned something about parts and the whole being connected, or part of each other, or an explanation of each other much like DNA in a cell is the part but it represents the whole body.

Mat Blanco, who was the psychologist, who found the logic in the unconscious aspect of mind also mentioned parts that 'represent?' the whole? So I would like to understand what they were talking about.

I have not yet done any research to try to learn more, but I had my radiation treatment, and of course, being an attack on my body, it activated my MS (Multiple Sclerosis), so I have been lax at responding in this thread.

On 2/28/2025 at 4:36 PM, joigus said:

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).

Please understand that I have no idea of what "quantum fields" are, and would never limit my study to humans as that is unbelievably arrogant and may be a little religious -- it smacks of, we are conscious because (we are made in "God's" image).

Not long after I realized that there are two aspects of consciousness, the digital conscious rational mind (thought) and the analogue unconscious, I realized that the unconscious (awareness/emotion) actually works outside of the body. It works between bodies, things, species. Years ago I was explaining my thoughts to someone and stated that it was much like a magnet, where a force or field (awareness) that is outside of the magnet does the attracting/repulsing. The person told me that I had no idea of what a quantum field is, which was true, so I dropped the subject and never brought it up again. Then I saw Federico's video.

Federico also recognizes that want/awareness/emotion works outside of the body. He called it fields.

On 2/28/2025 at 4:36 PM, joigus said:

By the same token you could venture to say quantum fields might have recollections, free will, bad temper, and so on.

You are making me smile here. It sounds like you are envisioning little word bubbles like in cartoons. Federico did mention free will and his doubt about a deterministic reality, but I did not interpret it that way. I thought that the variable that he was describing could possibly explain and maybe actuate evolution because it is activated by "want". He sees the foundation of reality as being want/emotion/feeling. I see the foundation as motion.

On 2/28/2025 at 4:36 PM, joigus said:

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

All species, ALL of them, every life form, has self-preservation instincts. We are talking plants, insects, fish, birds, animals, probably even fungi and moss -- all have self-preservation instincts -- and all of those instincts are activated through hormones and by feeling/want/emotion. This is not my opinion -- this is scientific fact. All multi-cellular species have hormones that work within the body and pheromones that work between bodies and between bodies and things. All activated by want/feeling/emotion.

I read somewhere a theory that someone had that maybe we were in consciousness, rather that consciousness was in us. I dismissed his ideas, but if he was talking about want/feeling/emotion, an awareness of things that are outside us, he may have been right.

On 2/28/2025 at 4:36 PM, joigus said:

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

If what I learned about and explained above is valid, then all unconscious actions have something to do with quantum fields. Something that starts with a feeling can be activated by chemistry and turn into an action that modifies our behavior even though we do not intend it. It can also influence our thoughts, actions, and societies.

Another thing to think about: We know that cattle needs to eat grass in order to survive, but did you know that some grasses need cattle feeding on it to survive? I was researching desertification and some of the attempts to restore grasslands, when I learned that we need cattle to feed on the grass, or it will die. There were a number of explanations, but the one I remember was that the grass had to be eaten down to where the base was exposed to the sun, or it would die out, so the grass produced a bad tasting chemical when it was eaten down so far, which caused the cow to move to something tastier. So you could say that the grass dictates the behavior of the cows, turning them into grazers. (chuckle)

What this does tell us is that neither the cow nor the grass could have evolved separately -- they would not have survived. I  am beginning to think that this nice orderly evolution from the simple to the complex may not be accurate.

Gee

On 3/1/2025 at 6:24 PM, studiot said:

Then I will leave it to those who understand it.

Good night.

I think you understand it just fine.

Thank you for the reference to: 

Something Deeply Hidden, Sean Carroll
 

Gee

[Eise]

@gee: just to ask. Did you read Schopenhauer, 'The World As Will and Representation'?

Quote

Spinoza (Epist. 62) says that if a stone projected through the air had consciousness, it would imagine it was flying of its own will. I add merely that the stone would be right. The impulse is for it what the motive is for me, and what in the case of the stone appears as cohesion, gravitation, rigidity in the assumed condition, is by its inner nature the same as what I recognize in myself as will, and which the stone also would recognize as will, if knowledge were added in its case also. In this passage Spinoza has his eye on the necessity with which the stone flies, and he rightly wants to transfer this to the necessity of a person's particular act of will. On the other hand, I consider the inner being that first imparts meaning and validity to all necessity (i.e., effect from cause) to be its presupposition. In the case of man, this is called character; in the case of the stone, it is called quality; but it is the same in both. Where it is immediately known, it is called will, and in the stone it has the weakest, and in man the strongest, degree of visibility, of objectivity.

 

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, Gees said:

If what I learned about and explained above is valid, then all unconscious actions have something to do with quantum fields.

It's only valid bc everything has something to do with quantum, but that's not the same as understanding anything about quantum... 🙄

We, by which I mean the royal variety, don't understand either; what makes you think your guesswork is helping to fill anyone's gap of knowledge and understanding?

As @Eise has pointed out, these question's have been thoroughly thought about by, for want of a better word, professional's throughout the age's; guessing has no value other than a spurious ego boost, if you're nearly correct.

[joigus]

16 hours ago, Gees said:

First, what do you mean when you say "consciousness"?

I'm not going down any philosophical rabbit hole. I'd be happy with something like "the ability to recognise oneself as an individual, separate from the rest of the universe".

I haven't watched the video, so I don't know what Federico or Mat said.

18 hours ago, Gees said:

Federico also recognizes that want/awareness/emotion works outside of the body. He called it fields.

That has nothing to do with a quantum field. It's clearly a misnomer then.

18 hours ago, Gees said:

You are making me smile here. It sounds like you are envisioning little word bubbles like in cartoons.

I'm not really envisioning anything. I'm drawing analogies between what strikes me as a silly idea and another hypothetical --but equally silly-- idea. Namely, that elementary quanta had other familiar attributes of conscious beings. You see, "quantum fields", "quanta", etc just means "elementary particles".

18 hours ago, Gees said:

All species, ALL of them, every life form, has self-preservation instincts. We are talking plants, insects, fish, birds, animals, probably even fungi and moss -- all have self-preservation instincts -- and all of those instincts are activated through hormones and by feeling/want/emotion. This is not my opinion -- this is scientific fact.

"Instincts" is kind of an umbrella term for many things, none of them applicable to fungi or plants, as far as I'm aware.

Physical fields are not responsible for feelings, or instincts, or happiness. Those aspects of so-called minds in all likelihood emerge from very complex interactions involving recursive correlations among / between aggregates of many elementary particles (or the fields representing them if you like), only when organised into protein tissue. Reinforcement of those correlations, and so on and so forth.

That it's not the other way around is only too obvious, and I can't make a better job of explaining it.

[Gees]

On 3/11/2025 at 6:14 AM, Eise said:

@gee: just to ask. Did you read Schopenhauer, 'The World As Will and Representation'?

No. I Googled him just now and found some of his ideas interesting. Although he did not  seem to understand that consciousness is divisible, he did a good job of describing the unconscious aspect of mind as  "a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge, outside of space and time, and free of all multiplicity."

This explanation is also very close to Federico's explanation regarding the foundation of quantum fields as they relate to consciousness.

Schopenhauer also saw the conscious aspect as the source of ideas, knowledge, or the ability to represent reality. But there was a great deal about consciousness that he did not appear to know, could not know, in the early 1800's. Science hadn't even started to study consciousness at that time. He also did not seem to be aware of the bonding that forms through some levels of the unconscious, which would leave consciousness very cold. Maybe this is why he was thought to be such a pessimist. 

On 3/11/2025 at 6:14 AM, Eise said:

Quote

Spinoza (Epist. 62) says that if a stone projected through the air had consciousness, it would imagine it was flying of its own will. I add merely that the stone would be right. The impulse is for it what the motive is for me, and what in the case of the stone appears as cohesion, gravitation, rigidity in the assumed condition, is by its inner nature the same as what I recognize in myself as will, and which the stone also would recognize as will, if knowledge were added in its case also. In this passage Spinoza has his eye on the necessity with which the stone flies, and he rightly wants to transfer this to the necessity of a person's particular act of will. On the other hand, I consider the inner being that first imparts meaning and validity to all necessity (i.e., effect from cause) to be its presupposition. In the case of man, this is called character; in the case of the stone, it is called quality; but it is the same in both. Where it is immediately known, it is called will, and in the stone it has the weakest, and in man the strongest, degree of visibility, of objectivity.

I like Spinoza, but don't like it when people use the word "imagine" so loosely. It implies that every idea that exists, but we don't know the source of, is imagined. What is the source of the projection that moved the rock? If it were 'will', then the source would come from the rock.

On 3/11/2025 at 6:14 AM, Eise said:

 

Sorry, I seem to have an extra box.

Gee

 

 

 

 

[Gees]

19 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm not going down any philosophical rabbit hole. I'd be happy with something like "the ability to recognise oneself as an individual, separate from the rest of the universe".

OK. So you are happy with the idea that recognition/acknowledgment of "self" is evidence of consciousness. I agree with you, but do you realize that you have just stated that all life is conscious?

19 hours ago, joigus said:

I haven't watched the video, so I don't know what Federico or Mat said.

Well, this is awkward.

19 hours ago, joigus said:

That has nothing to do with a quantum field. It's clearly a misnomer then.

I am not sure about that. Federico is a well respected scientist and may have a reason for saying that want/awareness/emotion works outside of the body. Since want/awareness/emotion all source through the unconscious aspect of mind and are also not plottable, and emotion specifically ignores time, they don't seem to be physical.

Maybe you could look at the first half hour of his video so you can understand what he means. Then you could explain it to me.

19 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm not really envisioning anything. I'm drawing analogies between what strikes me as a silly idea and another hypothetical --but equally silly-- idea. Namely, that elementary quanta had other familiar attributes of conscious beings.

An analogy is used to clarify an idea -- promote understanding. Comparing two "silly" ideas does not do that, so I wouldn't call it an analogy. It is more like being dismissive. Since you did not view the video, you are getting your information second hand from me -- an uneducated person as to physics -- which is not really a reliable source to make a judgment on. I don't think that Federico saw quanta as having familiar attributes of conscious beings. I think he saw quanta as being part of life and recognized that a computer, AI, was not going to gain consciousness without quanta. If I  understood him correctly.

19 hours ago, joigus said:

 You see, "quantum fields", "quanta", etc just means "elementary particles".

I don't think Federico would agree with you. He said that he spent 30 years working in quantum physics before he realized he was wrong. He needed to flip-flop his ideas. He said  that people think of particles as being physical/material, but they are not. This is why they pop in and out of existence, because they are not really matter. He said that we enhance them so that we can see them, but it is more like shadow boxing (my terminology, not his).

19 hours ago, joigus said:

"Instincts" is kind of an umbrella term for many things, none of them applicable to fungi or plants, as far as I'm aware.

'Instincts' is not an umbrella term; it is more like the name of a trash bin that we put ideas into. It has a sister trash bin called 'imagination". Few people have the ability to analyze abstract mental ideas, thought, emotion, awareness, etc., so when they come across unknown or unsourced ideas, they throw them into one of those bins. If it is an automatic reaction, they throw it into the 'instincts' bin; if it is a thought, experience, or knowledge that is unsourced, they throw it into the 'imagination' bin. Having studied consciousness most of my life, I am very aware of this, which is why I specifically stated that I was talking about self-preservation instincts, or you could call them survival instincts. These instincts have been pulled out of the trash bin and linked to various hormones/pheromones that promote the instincts. And yes, they apply to  ALL life. If moss is alive, then they apply to moss, as these instincts apply to all live cells.

19 hours ago, joigus said:

Physical fields are not responsible for feelings, or instincts, or happiness.

I didn't say they were. That is more of a "God" idea. What I said is that emotion, some feeling, and want do not work in physical reality. The unconscious aspect of mind, that is reactive and ruled by emotion, does not  work in physical reality. The unconscious does not think rationally because it ignores time, and therefore can not use logic. This is all clinically validated.

19 hours ago, joigus said:

Those aspects of so-called minds in all likelihood emerge from very complex interactions involving recursive correlations among / between aggregates of many elementary particles (or the fields representing them if you like), only when organised into protein tissue. Reinforcement of those correlations, and so on and so forth.

That it's not the other way around is only too obvious, and I can't make a better job of explaining it.

"So-called minds"? "in all likelihood"? I suspect that you can't make a better job of explaining it because you, like most of us, don't really understand it.

Gee

[zapatos]

On 3/11/2025 at 12:57 AM, Gees said:

All species, ALL of them, every life form, has self-preservation instincts. We are talking plants, insects, fish, birds, animals, probably even fungi and moss -- all have self-preservation instincts -- and all of those instincts are activated through hormones and by feeling/want/emotion. This is not my opinion -- this is scientific fact

Can you please provide a citation that states E coli and similar species have emotions?

[Gees]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Can you please provide a citation that states E coli and similar species have emotions?

Zapatos;

I have read enough of your posts to know that you are not stupid. I can only guess that you are trying too hard to be funny with your above comment. But I am still trying to understand how you attached emotion to bacteria and am wondering if you have a very limited understanding of survival instincts. Many people see instincts such as "fight or flight", or they see hormones relating to sex as highly emotional activities, so if this is where you got that idea then you could simply go to Wiki and look up hormones. You will find that they are much more diverse than most people think and are involved in every cell in every body.

But in case I am wrong about your understanding, I will explain that when a person uses the "/" symbol between words, it means 'either or possibly both' of the words that surround the "/" symbol may apply. So when you read "feeling/want/emotion" what it means is that either feeling and/or want and/or possibly emotion are involved. It does not mean that ALL are involved.

Now consider that of the three, 'want' is the weakest having only a straight attraction/repulsion ability, much like a magnet, but 'feeling' is more complex as it can involve varieties and strengths of attraction/repulsion. Emotion is the strongest feeling of all as it includes ideology along with the feeling, so I suspect that only species that have a brain, and therefore have access to ideology are advanced enough to be capable of emotion.

E coli is bacteria, so I do not believe it has a brain and so would not be capable of emotion. If I am wrong, please provide a citation that states E coli has brains.

Gee

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Gees said:

No. I Googled him just now and found some of his ideas interesting. Although he did not  seem to understand that consciousness is divisible, he did a good job of describing the unconscious aspect of mind as  "a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge, outside of space and time, and free of all multiplicity."

This explanation is also very close to Federico's explanation regarding the foundation of quantum fields as they relate to consciousness.

Your still not getting it, a fragment of a sentence that seems to agree with your guess, is a spurious understanding.

 

Quote

 

adjective

not being what it purports to be; false or fake:

"separating authentic and spurious claims"

(of a line of reasoning) apparently but not actually valid:

"this spurious reasoning results in nonsense"

 

 

It's akin to pretending you understand your dogs needs, bc you gave it a bowl of water when it was panting and wagging it's tail. 

 

In a hot car that it was hoping to get out of... 😉

[zapatos]

10 hours ago, Gees said:

E coli is bacteria, so I do not believe it has a brain and so would not be capable of emotion.

Okay. So can you please provide a citation that states E coli and similar species have feelings or desires (seems a better word than 'wants')?  I don't think it is reasonable to say a magnet 'wants' to attract a paper clip. That seems a personification of magnets.

[TheVat]

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't think it is reasonable to say a magnet 'wants' to attract a paper clip. That seems a personification of magnets.

What, you have never heard of a magnetic personality?  

 

 

[joigus]

22 hours ago, Gees said:

I agree with you, but do you realize that you have just stated that all life is conscious?

On 3/12/2025 at 2:38 AM, joigus said:

No, I haven't.

22 hours ago, Gees said:

Well, this is awkward.

Not at all. I haven't watched the video because according to the rules of this website the onus is on the members to explain the ideas on the thread. Not on the members to read or watch any supplementary material to be accessed off-site.

22 hours ago, Gees said:

I am not sure about that. Federico is a well respected scientist and may have a reason for saying that want/awareness/emotion works outside of the body.

Federico is well respected.

Federico once successfully worked as a scientist.

Let's leave it at that. None of that proves any point about quantum fields and consciousness. This has been addressed by other members.

22 hours ago, Gees said:

An analogy is used to clarify an idea -- promote understanding. Comparing two "silly" ideas does not do that, so I wouldn't call it an analogy.

Suffice to say:

Quote

analogy

 noun

 

 

/əˈnælədʒi/

 

/əˈnælədʒi/

(plural analogies)

1.  
   [countable] a comparison of one thing with another thing that has similar features; a feature that is similar
   •  analogy (between A and B) The teacher drew an analogy between the human heart and a pump.
   •  analogy (with something) There are no analogies with any previous legal cases.

What I said was intended as an analogy, reads like an analogy, and is an analogy. You saying it's not is just you saying it's not.

22 hours ago, Gees said:

'Instincts' is not an umbrella term; it is more like the name of a trash bin that we put ideas into. It has a sister trash bin called 'imagination". Few people have the ability to analyze abstract mental ideas, thought, emotion, awareness, etc., so when they come across unknown or unsourced ideas, they throw them into one of those bins.

You're clearly splitting hairs here. Again with the dictionary:

Quote

umbrella

 noun

 

 

/ʌmˈbrelə/

 

/ʌmˈbrelə/

[...]

2. a thing that contains or includes many different parts or elements

•  under the umbrella of something Many previously separate groups are now operating under the umbrella of a single authority.
• an umbrella organization/group/fund
• ‘Contact sports’ is an umbrella term for a variety of different sports.

Instincts is a useful term that includes many different responses according to different circuitry not processed entirely within the purview of the individual's volition. So it is an umbrella term.

22 hours ago, Gees said:

What I said is that emotion, some feeling, and want do not work in physical reality. The unconscious aspect of mind, that is reactive and ruled by emotion, does not  work in physical reality. The unconscious does not think rationally because it ignores time, and therefore can not use logic. This is all clinically validated.

I can't make sense of any part of this paragraph. Let alone believe that any of this foggy concepts are "clinically validated". You also said plants, fungi, and the like have "feelings" or self-awareness of some kind. I think @zapatos and others, have asked for scientific literature supporting such claim. Then you said E. Coli does not feel because it doesn't have a brain.

22 hours ago, Gees said:

"So-called minds"? "in all likelihood"? I suspect that you can't make a better job of explaining it because you, like most of us, don't really understand it.

 

I never said I do. I don't. I do have an idea of what it can't possibly (very plausibly, rather) be.

[Gees]

On 3/13/2025 at 8:30 AM, dimreepr said:

Your still not getting it, a fragment of a sentence that seems to agree with your guess, is a spurious understanding.

I am never going to get it from you. You seem to be interested in insulting people, but give no real information. Maybe you don't know anything? What is your area of expertise? You seem to know very little about consciousness and have given no information as to quantum physics.

On 3/13/2025 at 8:30 AM, dimreepr said:

It's akin to pretending you understand your dogs needs, bc you gave it a bowl of water when it was panting and wagging it's tail. 

In a hot car that it was hoping to get out of... 😉

Actually, I don't think that you gave any relevant information in the Nothing v Creation thread that this split off from, except to state that Maimonides was in some way relevant to the ending of the Dark Ages. Asking me to accept that a Jewish scholar worked to change and rewrite Christian church doctrine and influence the ending of the Dark Ages is just a little too much of an absurd idea for me to accept it. Maimonides was off topic there and is also off topic here. 

I don't believe that you are making a sincere effort to communicate with me.

Gee

[Gees]

On 3/13/2025 at 11:28 AM, zapatos said:

Okay. So can you please provide a citation that states E coli and similar species have feelings or desires (seems a better word than 'wants')?

I can go along with the idea of feelings, but have problems with the idea of "desires" as Google says that desires include wishes, so I am not ready to accept that terminology as to bacteria. Did you view the video at the start of this thread? And what is your area of expertise? I ask because if you did not view the video, then it is unlikely that you will consider any citation that I provide. And if you have no training in quantum fields or consciousness, then you are unlikely to understand anything that might be posted -- even if you take the time to look.

I am not new to forums and have many times watched an older established member demand citations of a new member -- that no one reads. It is like a game that the older members play with the newbies for entertainment purposes. I am too old and too tired to entertain you. But my grandson just showed me an article in the National Geographic about Dust Bears (tardigrade) that have been classified as "animals" and live all over the world. My grandson stated that these tardigrade actually have emotions, but I disagreed stating that they would have to have brains in order to have emotion. Apparently they do have brains, are multi-cellular, and have some emotion, which means that they have self-preservation instincts. What a surprise.

If you really were interested in this thread, you could ask more intelligent questions. All cellular life is aware to some degree, so it is conscious of its need to survive and has self-preservation instincts -- this is one of the things that qualifies it as life. Do viruses qualify as life? Not really. They are more a quasi-life that can come to life when in a host. Do viruses have self-preservation instincts? These are only noted when viruses are in a host body. What about seeds? Are they alive? Are they aware? They can die if not planted within a certain time, so something that can die is alive. How are they aware of the amount of time that passes?

This brings us to the really fun one, endospores. Endospores have been found that are millions of years old, they have been misidentified as fossils, then they come back to life. Following is an excerpt from Wiki:

Quote

An endospore is a dormant, tough, and non-reproductive structure produced by some bacteria in the phylum Bacillota.[1][2] The name "endospore" is suggestive of a spore or seed-like form (endo means 'within'), but it is not a true spore (i.e., not an offspring). It is a stripped-down, dormant form to which the bacterium can reduce itself. Endospore formation is usually triggered by a lack of nutrients, and usually occurs in Gram-positive bacteria. In endospore formation, the bacterium divides within its cell wall, and one side then engulfs the other.[3] Endospores enable bacteria to lie dormant for extended periods, even centuries. There are many reports of spores remaining viable over 10,000 years, and revival of spores millions of years old has been claimed. There is one report of viable spores of Bacillus marismortui in salt crystals approximately 25 million years old.

Why don't they die? Apparently bacteria will go through a lot to survive -- looks like self-preservation instincts to me.

On 3/13/2025 at 11:28 AM, zapatos said:

 I don't think it is reasonable to say a magnet 'wants' to attract a paper clip. That seems a personification of magnets.

I used the term "wants" because Federico did, but I usually use the terms attraction/repulsion to explain very simple awareness.

Studiot was right when noting that terminology is going to be a problem because of new understandings.

Gee

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

I can go along with the idea of feelings, but have problems with the idea of "desires" as Google says that desires include wishes, so I am not ready to accept that terminology as to bacteria. Did you view the video at the start of this thread? And what is your area of expertise? I ask because if you did not view the video, then it is unlikely that you will consider any citation that I provide. And if you have no training in quantum fields or consciousness, then you are unlikely to understand anything that might be posted -- even if you take the time to look.

I am not new to forums and have many times watched an older established member demand citations of a new member -- that no one reads. It is like a game that the older members play with the newbies for entertainment purposes. I am too old and too tired to entertain you. But my grandson just showed me an article in the National Geographic about Dust Bears (tardigrade) that have been classified as "animals" and live all over the world. My grandson stated that these tardigrade actually have emotions, but I disagreed stating that they would have to have brains in order to have emotion. Apparently they do have brains, are multi-cellular, and have some emotion, which means that they have self-preservation instincts. What a surprise.

If you really were interested in this thread, you could ask more intelligent questions. All cellular life is aware to some degree, so it is conscious of its need to survive and has self-preservation instincts -- this is one of the things that qualifies it as life. Do viruses qualify as life? Not really. They are more a quasi-life that can come to life when in a host. Do viruses have self-preservation instincts? These are only noted when viruses are in a host body. What about seeds? Are they alive? Are they aware? They can die if not planted within a certain time, so something that can die is alive. How are they aware of the amount of time that passes?

This brings us to the really fun one, endospores. Endospores have been found that are millions of years old, they have been misidentified as fossils, then they come back to life. Following is an excerpt from Wiki:

It would have been easier to just say "No, I am not going to provide a citation."

I really don't need a lecture about my nefarious motivations or the lack of quality in my questions.

I simply asked a question about a claim you made that seemed like it could benefit from some supporting documentation. Very simple. This is a science site after all.

If you won't deign to answer my question until I pass a worthiness test from you, I'll just move on. i'm not in the mood to take any crap from you.

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Gees said:

Why don't they die? Apparently bacteria will go through a lot to survive -- looks like self-preservation instincts to me.

Why can't I permanently eliminate the rust spots in my tub?  Apparently rust will go through a lot to survive.  

Just saying, it's very easy to anthropomorphize processes that are not at all conscious.

Natural selection leads to DNA code that preserves and replicates itself very well.  That doesn't mean DNA is conscious or has wants.

37 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Gees said:  All cellular life is aware to some degree,

  This is an assertion you (Gees)(messed up quote box, sorry) keep making, one which is not supported by any evidence, and would be rejected by most biologists (myself included) as a metaphysical conjecture.  Awareness has, in research so far, correlated with a complex neural structure in multicellular animals.  

37 minutes ago, zapatos said:

simply asked a question about a claim you made that seemed like it could benefit from some supporting documentation. Very simple. This is a science site after all.

You would hope the member understands how the site works by now.  And read the posting rules, on providing citations.  Given their tenacity and posting length, I found their plea of fatigue unconvincing.  

Edited March 14 by TheVat
quote box woes

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Gees said:

I can go along with the idea of feelings, but have problems with the idea of "desires" as Google says that desires include wishes, so I am not ready to accept that terminology as to bacteria. Did you view the video at the start of this thread? And what is your area of expertise? I ask because if you did not view the video, then it is unlikely that you will consider any citation that I provide. And if you have no training in quantum fields or consciousness, then you are unlikely to understand anything that might be posted -- even if you take the time to look.

AFAICT nobody has given a summary of the video, as required by the rules, so it does not exist, as far as discussion in this thread is concerned. All you have is citations, so you’d better provide them.

Quote

What is your area of expertise? You seem to know very little about consciousness and have given no information as to quantum physics.

What’s your area of expertise? You, too, have given no information as to quantum physics. If you thought that you could bluff your way through this by playing offense and that nobody would notice that there’s nothing that supports the premise of the OP, you’re wrong

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Gees said:

I am never going to get it from you. You seem to be interested in insulting people, but give no real information. Maybe you don't know anything? What is your area of expertise? You seem to know very little about consciousness and have given no information as to quantum physics.

You're never going to get it from anyone then, bc I was like you when I joined, forgive my English phrase, 'full of piss and importance' and I was slapped down many time's, and that's the thing, it's like riding a motorbike, all the great rider's have crashed and all the dead rider's thought they couldn't.

I know exactly as much as you about consciousness and quantum physics, the difference between us is, I understand the limit of my knowledge and you think you know it all.

All I can do is teach, I can't understand it for you... 🙄

[Gees]

On 2/13/2025 at 9:10 AM, Ant Sinclair said:

dimreepr

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

Maybe you should read Irreducible by Federico Faggin. 

 

 

 

Sinclair;

I don't know if you have left permanently, or if you occasionally come back to review what is happening in this thread. On the off chance that you occasionally visit, I wanted to leave you some information about Matte Blanco as he is not well known.

Blanco was a psychiatrist, who also studied psychology and worked under Anna Freud. He is credited with unraveling the illogical and irrational thought processes of the unconscious aspect of mind. He likes to call this understanding bi-logic as it is two different ways of using "logic", one that works within time and one that works without consideration of time. We have known for a long time that emotional thinking is NOT rational. We also know that emotional thinking actually changes memory -- adding, changing, and subtracting memories from our knowledge -- which would be why science does not like emotional thinking. It is too unstable; although, if you understand how emotional thinking actually works, you can find ways to make it dependable.

My point is that Federico used math to find that some consciousness is outside of time; you used math to find that some aspects of consciousness are outside of time and physical reality; and Blanco used math to learn that some aspects of consciousness are outside of, or ignorant of, time. He used math to break the unconscious into five stratums or levels.

I know very little about math, but these are three entirely different studies and way too much coincidence for me to ignore. This is probably why I had no problem accepting the possibilities that Federico considered, but you should know that most of what Federico is discussing is not what most people refer to as consciousness, it is what we refer to as the unconscious -- or more specifically as emotion. You would probably be more successful if you could reach psychiatrists/psychologists with your ideas.

Anyway, look up his work and think about it. I am not very good at posting websites, but you can learn more about Blanco at Wiki, and then go from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Matte_Blanco

Thank you for introducing me to Federico.

Gee

[Gees]

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

You're never going to get it from anyone then, bc I was like you when I joined, forgive my English phrase, 'full of piss and importance' and I was slapped down many time's, and that's the thing, it's like riding a motorbike, all the great rider's have crashed and all the dead rider's thought they couldn't.

The phrase is 'piss and vinegar'. But if what you say is accurate, then I must have been a "great" rider, as I have most definitely crashed. I rode for a few years, made two cross country trips by myself, the first from Michigan to Florida and the second from Michigan to Arizona, and was very very careful while riding. My 'piss and vinegar' did not extend to being careless.

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I know exactly as much as you about consciousness and quantum physics, the difference between us is, I understand the limit of my knowledge and you think you know it all.

All I can do is teach, I can't understand it for you... 🙄

Well, I can't teach much as I am still learning. I am not sure that you know "exactly" as much as I do about consciousness, but if you know nothing about quantum physics, then you may know "exactly" as much as I do.

Gee

[iNow]

32 minutes ago, Gees said:

The phrase is 'piss and vinegar'.

No. That’s a different phrase. He said something else. 

[Gees]

On 3/14/2025 at 5:56 PM, swansont said:

AFAICT nobody has given a summary of the video, as required by the rules, so it does not exist, as far as discussion in this thread is concerned. All you have is citations, so you’d better provide them.

Damned me. I thought the video WAS a citation. LMAO

First you said that the video made it so that this was a science thread, so you moved it out of the religion/philosophy subforum into speculations. Now you are saying that the video "does not exist", but I must provide a citation for a video in a thread that I did not create.

This started out as Sinclair's thread, then you hijacked it and made it your thread, but somehow I am responsible for it. Can these forum rules be 'cherry picked' because some of this does not make any sense.

On 3/14/2025 at 5:56 PM, swansont said:

What’s your area of expertise? You, too, have given no information as to quantum physics. If you thought that you could bluff your way through this by playing offense and that nobody would notice that there’s nothing that supports the premise of the OP, you’re wrong

After high school? I studied law. You are wrong, because I have repeatedly given information as to quantum physics -- I have stated very clearly that I know nothing about it.

I am not the one bluffing here. You have little respect for philosophy and a serious disgust for religion, and this thread is about consciousness, which is studied by philosophy, and it is about emotion, which is studied by religion. It is not about science and has never been about science. But you have way to much power in this forum, so you win even if you are dead wrong. Arguing with you is like arguing with Trump.

Gee

On 3/14/2025 at 3:57 PM, TheVat said:

Why can't I permanently eliminate the rust spots in my tub?  Apparently rust will go through a lot to survive.  

I was not aware that rust is alive. Can you provide a citation?

On 3/14/2025 at 3:57 PM, TheVat said:

Just saying, it's very easy to anthropomorphize processes that are not at all conscious.

I know. People do it with computers and robots all of the time.

On 3/14/2025 at 3:57 PM, TheVat said:

Natural selection leads to DNA code that preserves and replicates itself very well.  That doesn't mean DNA is conscious or has wants.

Never said it did. There is DNA and there is awareness. Are you saying that they are the same thing?

On 3/14/2025 at 3:57 PM, TheVat said:

  This is an assertion you (Gees)(messed up quote box, sorry) keep making, one which is not supported by any evidence, and would be rejected by most biologists (myself included) as a metaphysical conjecture.

It looks like you are stating that life is a metaphysical conjecture. So you are convinced that there is no awareness without a nervous system and/or brain. So why do HeLa cells continue to nourish themselves and reproduce without a brain or body? Since you are a biologist, you should be aware of HeLa cells.

On 3/14/2025 at 3:57 PM, TheVat said:

  Awareness has, in research so far, correlated with a complex neural structure in multicellular animals.

One does not find what they are not looking for. Our greatest strengths often cause our greatest weaknesses, so since faith is religion's greatest strength, blind faith is it's greatest weakness. Philosophy's greatest strength is learning new ideas, and its greatest weakness is imagining what is not real. Science's greatest strength is testing, so its greatest weakness is confirmation bias. If you do not look past the neural structure, then you will not find an answer past the neural structure.

On 3/14/2025 at 3:57 PM, TheVat said:

You would hope the member understands how the site works by now.  And read the posting rules, on providing citations.  Given their tenacity and posting length, I found their plea of fatigue unconvincing.  

I know damned well how the site works. If you are advocating for science, you can be dismissive, rude, off topic, and quite insincere in your posts and will often receive an up vote for it. But if you are not advocating for science, or accepted science, you will be down voted and eventually banned. I was never very politically correct.

If you mix MS (Multiple Sclerosis), cancer, radiation treatment, and the vagaries of life, it can make a person tired. The surgeon did not think that surgery was an option in my case. The oncologist does not want to use chemotherapy because of my MS, so the only option is radiation, which I don't expect will beat the cancer -- maybe it will slow it down. So there does not appear to be anything that anyone in this forum can do that will discourage me from thinking.

Gee

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, Gees said:

The phrase is 'piss and vinegar'. But if what you say is accurate, then I must have been a "great" rider, as I have most definitely crashed. I rode for a few years, made two cross country trips by myself, the first from Michigan to Florida and the second from Michigan to Arizona, and was very very careful while riding. My 'piss and vinegar' did not extend to being careless.

Well, I can't teach much as I am still learning. I am not sure that you know "exactly" as much as I do about consciousness, but if you know nothing about quantum physics, then you may know "exactly" as much as I do.

Gee

As you've completely missed my point, yet again, let me spell it out in crayons, I'm trying to teach you the value of humility in the process of understanding; there's a difference between a great rider and a lucky one... 😉 

When you demonstrate your ignorance in replying to this, I'll be a sad teacher... 😪

16 hours ago, Gees said:

My point is that Federico used math to find that some consciousness is outside of time

And Zeno used math to prove we can't move... 

Quote

Zeno's paradox of motion is a philosophical paradox that argues that an arrow in flight is always at rest. Zeno claims that at any given instant, the arrow is where it is, occupying a portion of space equal to itself. During the instant, it cannot move, for that would require the instant to have parts, and an instant is by definition a minimal and indivisible element of time.

 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Gees said:

Damned me. I thought the video WAS a citation. LMAO

First you said that the video made it so that this was a science thread, so you moved it out of the religion/philosophy subforum into speculations. Now you are saying that the video "does not exist", but I must provide a citation for a video in a thread that I did not create.

I guess part of the problem is reading comprehension.

I said “I split the thread because quantum fields was not part of the OP, and neither was consciousness” and I posted a modnote noting that posting a video without supporting info isn’t compliant with the rules.

I didn’t say anything about a citation for the video.

 

 

12 hours ago, Gees said:

This started out as Sinclair's thread, then you hijacked it and made it your thread, but somehow I am responsible for it. Can these forum rules be 'cherry picked' because some of this does not make any sense.

You seem to be supporting the claim of the OP. You certainly aren’t rebutting it.

But since your version of events is incorrect, perhaps that’s part of your confusion?

12 hours ago, Gees said:

After high school? I studied law. You are wrong, because I have repeatedly given information as to quantum physics -- I have stated very clearly that I know nothing about it.

That’s information about your knowledge, not information about quantum physics.