Quantum Electrodynamics proves the failure of materialism

[marcobiagini]

In the following site I analyse the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges of brain and matter.

This analysis points out how Quantum Electrodynamics proves that the brain cannot generate consciousness, which existence implies the presence in man of a unbiological/unmaterial entity. The problem of consciousness is then strictly connected to the one of the existence of the soul and, consequently, the existence of God.

http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf

 

Let's discuss my arguments here.

 

Marco Biagini

 

Ph.D. Graduated in Solid State Physics.

[alt_f13]

God came out of left field. Soul and God do not come hand in hand in my view. What you have said implies a force we have not yet been able to explain but in no way implicates the existance of an all powerful universe defining entity. But that is only if you are correct in the assumption that it is not possible for an actual conciousness to exist in our universe as we know it today.

 

How did you come to the conclusion that a god MUST exist? And why is the Christian faith specifically right, as opposed to any other faith in which humans possess souls?

 

Do mentally handicapped people have souls? I've seen some really smart chimanzies on television with at least the mental capacities of some of the handicapped people I have met in person. Is this a special case? Do the chimps have souls? If it is unprovable that animals have souls it is certainly unprovable that severely handicapped people have souls.

 

What if a chimp and a handicapped person play checkers and the chimp wins, does he obtain the handicapped persons soul by default or is God the referee in that case?

 

If not, why not? The 0.01% difference in DNA between the chimp and the handicapped person?

 

Please elaborate.

[Sayonara]

"Quantum Electrodynamics proves that the brain cannot generate consciousness".

 

Just the brain?

[YT2095]

Marco Biagini

 

you`ve posted this question 3 times, 2 have been removed. please, one question... one thread.

Cheerz

[marcobiagini]

>>>>What you have said implies a force we have not yet been able to explain but in no way implicates the existance of an all powerful universe defining entity.

 

What I have said implies that consciousness transcends matter and all interactons we know.

 

 

>>>But that is only if you are correct in the assumption that it is not possible for an actual conciousness to exist in our universe as we know it today.

 

This is only my first point. My second point is that future advances in science can never allow us to give an explanation of consciousness.

In fact advances in science has never dethroned and can never dethrone well established facts, supported by billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data. It would be equivalent to hypothesize that one day science will discover that the earth does not orbit around the sun, but it is motionless at the center of the universe. The statement "maybe one day science will discover that..." is no longer a rational statement, because of the wide and systematic experimantal confirmation obtained by the laws of physics. The laws of physics establish some firm points, which must always be considered when we make a rational and scientific hypothesis.

Today we have billions of billions of data confirming that cerebral, biological, chemical and molecular processes are determined uniquely by Quantum Electrodynamic. Since no Quantum Electrodynamic processes generate consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness.

Advances in physics allow us to discover new processes at higher and higher energies; this is the only possible advances in physics, but this kind of advances lead us farther and farther from consciousness, because no high energy processes occur in our brain. Consider that in modern particle accelerators, it is possible to reach energies a billion of times superior to the energies of chemical and biological processes. Nevertheless, in the hope to discover some new processes, scientists have to design new accelerators, able to reach even much greater energies.

There is another fundamemtal point; history shows that scientific progress has been possible only when scientists began to compare theoritical results with experimenal data. Since all our measurement instruments work and are designed on the basis of the laws of physics, and since consciousness transcends such laws, it is not possible to design any instruments able to measure consciousness. Without such measurement instruments, it will never be possible to reach any scientific progresses in the explanation of the existence of consciousness. It is useful to observe that, in spite of the great scientific progresses reached in the fields of the natural sciences, no steps have ever been done in history in such direction, as it is proved by the fact that science is not able to explain, neither in principle, the existence of consciousness, neither the existence of the most banal sensation.

 

 

 

>>>How did you come to the conclusion that a god MUST exist? And why is the Christian faith specifically right, as opposed to any other faith in which humans possess souls?

 

Please read my answers to these questions in the FAQ section in my site. Then we may discuss my arguments.

 

 

Marco

[JaKiri]

Aside from the spelling errors (although if it's translated from italian I can understand), I don't see why all electrons being identical means you can't have isolated thoughts, ditto the electric field.

 

A computer uses electrons to transmit data, and they're the same electrons (not literally), yet the results we gather are much different from different computers, much different from what we tell it to do.

 

The whole section seems to me to be saying the equivilent 'We can't transmit pictures on light! It's LIGHT for god's sake!'.

 

Furthermore, the last bit of the first section is an attempt to 'blind them with science'; not only is it seeming to make an attempt to revive Laplacian Determinism, it's also ignoring the fact that people are not saying that consciousness is something that breaks the laws of physics.

 

To sum up the argument of the first section 'Because there are laws of physics, consciousness cannot exist.'

 

As for the second paragraph, I had higher hopes from the title, 'Biological life does not imply consciousness', because that can work in two good ways; 1. that everything biological is not conscious. 2. that everything conscious doesn't have to be biological.

 

However, you went down a totally different route, exclaiming that because you can replicate some throught processes in computers, that means that animals aren't alive.

 

Surely that's totally misunderstanding the concepts of thought and consciousness, and overestimating the regard that animals are held in, in terms of mental agility?

 

There is no reason that a computer could not be conscious.

 

It then goes on to say that we're all 'Biological robots' and implies that this is something awful that disallows the existance of consciousness.

 

Why? We are all results of our programming (as it were), socially and physically. You cannot argue that we would be the same people today if we had different genes, or were isolated from society. Us being programmed or similar doesn't exclude consciousness.

 

You also haven't justified why it is bad. You've just stated that it is. That's not only bad science, it's bad arguing.

 

As for 'Cerebral activity and consciousness', that's ignoring Occam's Razor.

WHY shouldn't we assume that the brain is the root of consciousness? Some brain damage alters consciousness, or at least empirically it does. Lobotomisation wouldn't work if the brain didn't have some part to play. What about those drugs you mentioned so readily? They act on the brain, parts of the brain KNOWN to be involved in vision, in thought, in the like, and it's therefore perfectly reasonable to assume that the brain is involved in this kind of thing. Furthermore, there's also the matter of the nervous system; that all goes back to the brain.

 

The bit about physics!

 

1. You've completely misunderstood the scientific method, or have defined words for you own purposes. There is NO scientific theory that arises from first principles.

 

2. I've no idea where you're going with the 2nd paragraph. It is true that physical laws are simplified in the most case (noone uses SR to calculate the mass of a car going at 20mph, say), but your sentence which reads 'The laws of physics have a general validity, but in their application to specific systems, it is possible to use simpler rules, specific for that kind of system; these rules are neither extraneous, nor independent from the laws of physics, but they are a direct consequence of the law of physics. ' has no meaning. Simpler formulae are almost NEVER derived from more complicated ones; they are just the relics of the previous wave (like Newton and Einstein), which have been superceded because they were inaccurate.

 

Furthermore, your statement 'If they predict things that are outside the laws of physics, they must be wrong!' is not actually the case. It is entirely possible that the laws of physics can be wrong, and indeed it must be assumed that they are, and if there is substantial evidence from an experiment, be it of another science or nay, to suggest that the results gathered in other experiments are incorrect, then it must be repeated and explained or debunked.

 

Furthermore, you're talking as if 'PHYSICS' is one big constant body. It quite clearly isn't. It's changing all the time, as new research with greater accuracy is performed, new mathematical interpretations are constructed, and the like. If something in physics is proved incorrect, it doesn't mean that ALL SCIENCE IS DESTROYED! It just means that there is a more accurate way of looking at things now, so results will be better to theorise with.

 

Look at Newton. Newton was wrong in many ways, yet it doesn't stop the planets going around the sun, or the like. All scientific theories are based around what we can measure, and they're bound to be consistent with the evidence, at least up until a certain level of accuracy.

 

As to the next section ('Laws of physics in history') I like the way you're assuming that the standard model of quantum physics is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, and that it will NEVER CHANGE. This is quite clearly not the case, as it's the area that's undergoing most rapid change at the moment. You say that a change in astronomical laws won't affect QED; I say it will. Something like GR is an 'astronomical law', yet its metaphysics needs to be consistent with that of QED, otherwise we know that there is something wrong (this is the case at the moment, and is why things like String Theory are being formulated).

 

The 2nd para in the section I've already dealt with. It's all about approximating, and building on old results.

 

'First principle calculations'

 

NOTHING in science works from first principles. It all has to be empirically verified. Furthermore, your assertion that we can calculate from the subatomic to the atomic is flawed. Look at Schroedinger's Wave Equation. This is regarded as impossible to solve for more than 2 bodies. So unless you're calculating a single hydrogen atom from theory, you're going to have to approximate.

 

Furthermore, as I've said before, your assertion that 'Physics is right, therefore consciousness cannot exist in the body' is flawed.

 

The conclusion largely deals with matters dealt with before (as is its nature), however, it must be REITERATED in reply that the article appears to arise from assuming that the science of biology is in some sort of competition with physics, when in fact they're both working from the same method. If the science of neurochemistry hasn't gotten far yet (although it's doing very well), it must be stated that it's a VERY YOUNG SCIENCE.

 

And once again, I must point out that the standard model of QM is hideously flawed.

 

The theory of evolution

 

Again, this is an area which you either don't know about or haven't understood. We DO have sufficient evidence to suggest that the human organism came about through evolution (otherwise it WOULDN'T BE SUGGESTED), and there are suggested paths that formation of consciousness might take.

 

And then you go and waste all my time by showing yourself to be a religious nut at the end.

 

Thanks very much.

 

(I also doubt that you have a respectable PhD, although it is a possibility. If you do, why not try to learn about what you're saying.)

 

And a final note.

 

Do not attempt to blind people with science on a SCIENCE FORUM.

 

[edit]

 

Oh, and re: the FAQ, you're talking a lot of bollocks in there as well.

 

Natural selection is the application of the laws of statistics to the case of genetic mutation. The laws of statistics are a part of the laws of physics and the genetic mutation is a direct consequence of quantum mechanics.

 

1. Since when was maths part of physics?

 

2. Genetic mutation is NOT a direct consequence of QM.

 

3. Whut?

[JaKiri]

marcobiagini said in post # :

In fact advances in science has never dethroned and can never dethrone well established facts, supported by billions and billions of systematic and quantitative experimental data. It would be equivalent to hypothesize that one day science will discover that the earth does not orbit around the sun, but it is motionless at the center of the universe.

 

Ignoring that it was scientists that proved it in the first place (european religion was still going with the flat earth model), all rest frames are equally valid, so in that sense the earth IS stationary at the center of the universe.

 

 

 

marcobiagini said in post # :

The statement "maybe one day science will discover that..." is no longer a rational statement, because of the wide and systematic experimantal confirmation obtained by the laws of physics. The laws of physics establish some firm points, which must always be considered when we make a rational and scientific hypothesis.

 

Science will some day stop GR and QM being in conflict. That's not an irrational statement, and I don't think anyone IS ignoring the laws of physics.

 

marcobiagini said in post # :

Today we have billions of billions of data confirming that cerebral, biological, chemical and molecular processes are determined uniquely by Quantum Electrodynamic. Since no Quantum Electrodynamic processes generate consciousness, this is equivalent to say that we have billions and billions of data conferming that no cerebral processes generate consciousness.

 

Laplacian determinism is SPECIFICALLY DENIED by QM, not SUPPORTED. QM states that there is no way of predicting with certainty any outcome from any interaction (basically).

 

marcobiagini said in post # :

Advances in physics allow us to discover new processes at higher and higher energies; this is the only possible advances in physics, but this kind of advances lead us farther and farther from consciousness, because no high energy processes occur in our brain.

 

Actually, that's finding high energy PARTICLES. For instance, the graviton (to actually construct it, as it were) is theorised to be a high energy particle. However, that doesn't mean that lower energy interactions are free of the effects of gravity.

 

Furthermore, you're also ignoring that research is also going on into LOW ENERGY SYSTEMS. The whole of QM Is in flux (boom boom), just as the whole of science is. I said it in my previous post, and I'll restate it here:

 

The standard model of Quantum Mechanics has flaws.

 

As for the rest of the post, you're just waffling on with mindless speculation, and a nice piece of misdirection at the end.

[Giles]

Conciousness is held to be a property of a material system, not its individual components. Juat like every single other macroscopic process. Even if the argument were valid (but as MrL has pointed out - it isn't), it is founded on a false premiss, and so fails.

[Giles]

marcobiagini said in post # :

It is useful to observe that, in spite of the great scientific progresses reached in the fields of the natural sciences, no steps have ever been done in history in such direction, as it is proved by the fact that science is not able to explain, neither in principle, the existence of consciousness, neither the existence of the most banal sensation.

This will get you started. This seems likely to be all you'll need, but since it's so pricey I guess you'd want to try a library.

[fafalone]

As to quantum mechanical uncertainty, calculations have been done suggesting this is not signficant enough to cause a neuron to fire.

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

As to quantum mechanical uncertainty, calculations have been done suggesting this is not signficant enough to cause a neuron to fire.

 

I was more suggesting the end of laplacian determinism duder, not random interactions in the brain.

[Giles]

fafalone said in post # :

As to quantum mechanical uncertainty, calculations have been done suggesting this is not signficant enough to cause a neuron to fire.

If, for some strange reason, it turned out that non-determinism was a requirement of conciousness (and I'll say right now that seems pretty unlikely to me, free will notwithstanding) it would follow that the brain made use of some ampliative system for a small-scale random (quantum) effect. (Would such a system count as chaotic?) Such systems are common in cells, although of course usually the cell wants to regulate them.

[marcobiagini]

>>>>Conciousness is held to be a property of a material system, not its individual components. Juat like every single other macroscopic process.

 

As I have expalined in my article entitled "scientific contradictions in materialism" (you can find itin my site), consciousness cannot be considered a macroscopic property because this definition is inconsistent from a logical point of view; in fact, science has proved that the so-called macroscopic properties are only concepts used by man to describe in an approximated way real physical processes, which consist uniquely of successions of microscopic elementary processes. The macroscopic properties quoted by materialists, are not objective properties of the physical reality, but they are only subjective concepts; in other words, they are abstractions and ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria, a given succession of microscopic processes. The point is that the existence of a concept or idea implies the existence of consciousness. Therefore, the concept of macroscopic property implies the existence of consciousness. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered a macroscopic property of the physical reality, because the concept itself of macroscopic property implies the existence of consciousness. We have then a very direct logical contradiction. No concept which implies the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. This is obvious.

 

(see a more detailed discussion in my article)

 

Marco

[marcobiagini]

>>>A computer uses electrons to transmit data, and they're the same electrons (not literally), yet the results we gather are much different from different computers, much different from what we tell it to do.

 

From computers we simply obatined successions of electric impulses and successions of photons emitted by the screen. Nothing else.

 

 

>>The whole section seems to me to be saying the equivilent 'We can't transmit pictures on light! It's LIGHT for god's sake!'.

 

Pictures consists only in a geometrical distribution of light spots.

No entities exist in the physical reality as we see it. Pictures are only optical illussions, and the existence of an illusion implies the existence of consciousness. Therefore conscioussnes canot be an illusion. This is obvious.

Please read my article entitled "Scientific contradictions in materialism".

 

 

Marco

[JaKiri]

marcobiagini said in post # :

From computers we simply obatined successions of electric impulses and successions of photons emitted by the screen. Nothing else.

 

Frankly, that's like saying GR is 'Just a theory' (dismissively). There's a LOT encompassed by the statements above, as I said in my post previously. You're also dismissing the possibility of AI, and a lot of computer scientists would like to have a word with you.

 

marcobiagini said in post # :

No entities exist in the physical reality as we see it.

 

Gone to rather extreme nihilism have we?

 

marcobiagini said in post # :

Pictures are only optical illussions, and the existence of an illusion implies the existence of consciousness. Therefore conscioussnes canot be an illusion. This is obvious.

 

If 'recognising pictures' is your criterion for consciousness, then all animals are conscious. Then a computer is conscious.

 

Furthermore, I don't particularly see why 'all pictures are illusions'. Is it because there's an exchange particle involved? In that case, ALL force is an illusion, and ALL THINGS are conscious, because they are capable of experiencing this illusion. That, to me, is a rather nonsense definition of consciousness.

 

Furthermore, as an argument, it's fairly useless, and shares similarities with the 'What if we're inside a big pc!!!!!!!!' argument. Occam's Razor precludes that, and Occam's Razor will probably preclude your argument too.

 

You're contradicting yourself, and at both ends your argument is incorrect.

[marcobiagini]

marcobiagini said in post # :

No entities exist in the physical reality as we see it. ”

 

>>>Gone to rather extreme nihilism have we?

 

Not at all. Simply science have proved that solid objects are not uniformly filled with motionless matter, as we see them. Solid objects are at 99.999999% made with emptyness.

 

>>>>If 'recognising pictures' is your criterion for consciousness, then all animals are conscious. Then a computer is conscious.

 

The point is that "recognising picture" is NOT my criterion for consciousness. It is in fact possible to build a mechanism able to recognise a picture, but this mechanism does not have a visive sensation. For example, the authomac doors of a supermarket have no visive sensations, even if they open when you get near.

 

 

Marco

[greg1917]

Not at all. Simply science have proved that solid objects are not uniformly filled with motionless matter, as we see them. Solid objects are at 99.999999% made with emptyness.

 

And your point would be?

 

If theres a massive warehouse with only an apple lying in the middle of the floor, does that mean the apple doesnt exist because the vast majority of the space inside the warehouse is empty?

 

Just because it happens to be 99.99 whatever percent, doesnt mean you can round to zero.

 

The visible universe is 99.99... % empty as well. That doesnt mean stars, planets, galaxies, nebulae and gas clouds just dont exist. the point your making isnt so much as flawed, its flat out wrong.

[JaKiri]

marcobiagini said in post # :

Not at all. Simply science have proved that solid objects are not uniformly filled with motionless matter, as we see them. Solid objects are at 99.999999% made with emptyness.

 

Even ignoring that this is irrelevent (see greg's post), they're not. The quantum foam (I prefer 'fuzz' personally) being what it is.

 

 

marcobiagini said in post # :

The point is that "recognising picture" is NOT my criterion for consciousness. It is in fact possible to build a mechanism able to recognise a picture, but this mechanism does not have a visive sensation. For example, the authomac doors of a supermarket have no visive sensations, even if they open when you get near.

 

Why did you say it was then?

 

[edit]

 

You still haven't started on the rest of my rather enormous post.

[Radical Edward]

moving to pseudoscience.

[Giles]

marcobiagini said in post # :

>>>>Conciousness is held to be a property of a material system, not its individual components. Juat like every single other macroscopic process.

 

As I have expalined in my article entitled "scientific contradictions in materialism" (you can find itin my site), consciousness cannot be considered a macroscopic property because this definition is inconsistent from a logical point of view; in fact, science has proved that the so-called macroscopic properties are only concepts used by man to describe in an approximated way real physical processes, which consist uniquely of successions of microscopic elementary processes. ...

 

Yes, but a "succession of processes" can exhibit properties which a single entity - or a collection of all entities involved in the proccess - cannot. A computer can execute a program, where a random arrangement of the same transistors cannot. A population of organisms in an environment can evolve, whereas a collection of the same organisms outside any spatial, temporal or material context cannot. This sentence can have a meaning which the individual words out of order do not.

[marcobiagini]

>>>Yes, but a "succession of processes" can exhibit properties which a single entity - or a collection of all entities involved in the proccess - cannot.

 

Absolutely false. You fail to understand that such "properties" are only arbitrary concepts used to described approximately the REAL succession of microscopic elementary processes. (I have discussed this in details in my articles entitled "Scientific Contradictions in Materialism" on my site)

 

>>>A computer can execute a program, where a random arrangement of the same transistors cannot.

 

The point is that the word "program" represents nothing more than a succession of elementary processes. n other word you are simply using different words to indicate different successions of elementary processes. These words and these concepts however do not represent REAL properties, because they are only abstractions, existing only on your conscious mind. In the physical reality only successions of elementary processes exist.

Since the existence of a concept, such as a "macroscopic property", implies the existence of consciousness, consciousness cannot be a macroscopic property. QED

 

 

Marco

 

 

[marcobiagini]

.

[marcobiagini]

>>>If theres a massive warehouse with only an apple lying in the middle of the floor, does that mean the apple doesnt exist because the vast majority of the space inside the warehouse is empty?

Just because it happens to be 99.99 whatever percent, doesnt mean you can round to zero.

 

You apparently have completely misunderstood my argiuments. My argument was that the true physical reality is diferent from what we see. When you see an apple, you imagine an object uniformly filled with motioless matter. Such object does not exist.

What exist is instead a set of particles moving, acording to specific dynamical equaions, in a specific region of space.

 

Marco

 

 

[marcobiagini]

>>>>You still haven't started on the rest of my rather enormous post.

 

I thought I had. Anyway, can you please repeat the points you think I have not answered, (only one at a time, please) I am will try to consider them. (probably this will not be possible till next weak)

 

Marco.

[JaKiri]

marcobiagini said in post # :

When you see an apple, you imagine an object uniformly filled with motioless matter.

 

I don't.

 

Oh, and you're also getting the cause and effect the wrong way round. The equations approximate the interactions of the particles, not define them.

 

marcobiagini said in post # :

I thought I had. Anyway, can you please repeat the points you think I have not answered, (only one at a time, please) I am will try to consider them. (probably this will not be possible till next weak)

 

Why not read them yourself? You've only replied to the THIRD line out of THIRTY EIGHT