Is Consciousness an Abract Theory?

[Graviphoton]

No point writing out a massive essay. Let's keep this as short as possible, so that we can keep on track.

 

Here is my arguement...

 

Without consciousness, spacetime as we know it would become abstract, simply because reality is relative to the perception of an observer. Without this so-called ''abstract'' reality of consciousness (which evidently arises from actual quantum fluctuations), is afterall, the only reality at large. I can qoute many physicists stating this fact.

 

For what would reality be, without the observer there to give it meaning... or putting it another way... The reality of existence as we know it, would cease to exist without the observer, so physics cannot explain what reality would be at large without an observer.

 

So in short... This so-called abstract phenomenon we call consciousness, is in fact the very thing keeping any description of spacetime from being an abstract theory itself.

[mooeypoo]

That's not proof, it's an idea.

 

A nice one, I like it. I disagree, but I like. I'm gonna think about it better after some sleep, I'm sure, so I can probably answer better. But it's still just an idea, not a proof, so as far as the debate goes on, you still can't take "consciousness as a physical property" as a premise without exposing your theory to some major bunkness.

 

Other than that, I suggest you stop opening a bazillion threads with the same subjects. Flooding the forums with the same idea is confusing, annoying, and detracting from the seriousness of your theory.

 

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

Depending on what you mean, because many doctors of physics will insideously present that the first rule of quantum physics, is that there is no reality without the perception of reality. Because of this, i can make the suggestion:

 

 

''This so-called abstract phenomenon we call consciousness, is in fact the very thing keeping any description of spacetime from being an abstract theory itself.''

[Edtharan]

You are getting confused between the common useage of the term "Observer" and the technical term "Observer".

 

In the common useage an Observer is usually a person. In the technical useage, an Observer is anything that interacts with the subject.

 

This can be a person, a photon, an electron, etc. It does not requier the "observer" to be consious, only that it interacts with it in some way. In the case of a photon an electron, when the photon hits the electron, the photon interacts with the electron (and the electron with the photon) and so "observes" the electron (and the electron observes the photon too).

 

There is no consiousnes involved in this useage of the word "Observe".

 

Because of this when anybody uses the term "Observer" in relation to Quantum Mechanics in an argument for Consiousness, thy are falling for the Equivocation Logical Fallacy.

[Graviphoton]

Actually, i am not. You will find that one of Copenhagens arguements is that the observer is unique, to a particle, because we store the memory of the subject being observed. That is actually a very important premise.

 

Perhaps i should have made that clearer though... then you would have realised i know that a particle is considered an observer... difference is, its an observer with no true meaning.

[mooeypoo]

Depending on what you mean, because many doctors of physics will insideously present that the first rule of quantum physics, is that there is no reality without the perception of reality. Because of this, i can make the suggestion:

 

Reference, references.

 

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

 

References...

 

''This so-called abstract phenomenon we call consciousness, is in fact the very thing keeping any description of spacetime from being an abstract theory itself.''

References.

 

References..!

[swansont]

One must strive to not confuse interpretations of quantum mechanics with actual quantum mechanics. The former are philosophies, the latter is science.

[Graviphoton]

Swanson

 

Well, that really depends doesn't it? Do you believe a particle is real when not looking at it? Quantum mechanics would state it isn't. Is this an interpretation, or a fact?

 

Mooey... i'll come to you soon m8

 

Moeey - just4U lol

 

Some famous qoutes:

 

'We ourselves can bring about into existence only very small-scale properties, like the spin of the electron. Might it require intelligent beings, 'more conscious' than ourselves to bring into existence the electrons and other particles?

Barrow and Tipler, 'the Anthropic Principle.'

 

'No photon exists until a detector fires, only a developing potentiality. Particle-like and wave-like behavior are properties we ascribe to light. Without us, light has no properties, no existence. There is no independent reality for phenomena nor agencies of observation.'

Niels Bohr

 

'The world in Copenhagen interpretation is merely potential before our observation, and is actual afterwards.'

Bryce S. DeWitt

 

'We have to imagine the system a-attentively trying out all potentialities out of which one actually emerges.'

David Bohm

 

'There is always a triple correspondence;

1. A mental image, which is in our minds and not in the external world

2. Some kind of counterpart in the external world, which is inscrutable in nature

3. A set of pointer readings, which exact science can study and connect with other pointer readings

To put the conclusion crudely - the stuff of the world is 'mind stuff'. '

Sir Arthur Eddington

 

References to read:

 

''Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds 1985''

 

''Mind into Matter: The New Alchemy of Science''

 

Can i also add:

 

Looking at wiki, it says the Heisenberg often confused his uncertainty principle as an observer effect.

 

Does wiki know anything? It would do some of these writers good to learn about the subjects they are writing about, so we are NOT MISINFORMED...

 

As Dr Cramer will tell you..

 

''In Copenhagen, an observer is actually unique, because the observer HAS memory of the system she measures...''

 

A mundane observer cannot do this. That is why the observer effect is still alive today, despite decoherence.

 

I'll leave you with a final qoute from Andre Linde, concerning our need to answer for conscisouenss and mind:

 

''The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view [the 3D world]. Space-time and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question which one of the two is more fundamental. Space-time was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom, associated with perturbations of the metric-gravitational waves.

 

Is it possible that consciousness, like space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of freedom, and that neglecting these will lead to a description of the universe that is fundamentally incomplete?''

[swansont]

Swanson

 

Well, that really depends doesn't it? Do you believe a particle is real when not looking at it? Quantum mechanics would state it isn't. Is this an interpretation, or a fact?

 

 

Is there any way of actually knowing? Is there a measurable implication of the condition (i.e. real/not real)?

 

I don't actually spend much time thinking about it.

[Graviphoton]

Yes.

 

Copenhagen states we know, because upon measuring the particle, we see it in a state that has collapsed. We know the collapse must happen upon observation, due to careful experiments in the wave nature of gradual collapse in decoherence.