Hijack from what happens to a particle after it stops being observed

[MirceaKitsune]

Although I only understood and accepted this recently, matter existed long before the universe had any concept of life or consciousness. So conscious observation most likely doesn't change what any particle is or does... all particles / atoms / molecules were there and doing the same thing to begin with. Personally however, I believe there are systems within this complex mechanism of the universe that make awareness and thoughts project certain effects directly onto particles. How no one knows... and speculations without a mathematical formula likely qualify as paranormal more than anything.

 

I believe the first step in finding an answer will be explaining how consciousness and spirit really work... in a fully scientific and zero religious way. Sadly that still seems pretty far away, but the day will come when science will figure this out too.

[PeterJ]

So, you have learnt that matter existed long before the universe had any concept of consciousness. Not a lot of people know this. I suggest publishing the experiment that confirms it. You shouldn't have any trouble getting into Nature with such a breakthrough.

 

It seems you also know that consciousness can be explained in a 'zero religious' way. Your knowledge seems to be well ahead of physics.

 

Excuse me for saying so, but I have sneaky suspicion that you are mistaking guesswork and wishful thinking for science and analysis.

[MirceaKitsune]

So, you have learnt that matter existed long before the universe had any concept of consciousness. Not a lot of people know this. I suggest publishing the experiment that confirms it. You shouldn't have any trouble getting into Nature with such a breakthrough.

 

It seems you also know that consciousness can be explained in a 'zero religious' way. Your knowledge seems to be well ahead of physics.

 

Excuse me for saying so, but I have sneaky suspicion that you are mistaking guesswork and wishful thinking for science and analysis.

 

Actually, I'm doing quite the opposite of wishful thinking... I analyze things and try to see how they work. Which is however not the case here, because this is not a breakthrough nor something I learned... it's common knowledge as far as I'm aware. The physics of the universe created life, not a conscious being which designed the universe and drew life on Earth with a brush. I don't want to start a religious argue so this is as much as it felt fair to reply.

Edited April 3, 2014 by MirceaKitsune

[PeterJ]

I'm sorry, but your statement, 'matter existed long before the universe has any concept of life or consciousness', makes it clear that you do not make calculations but indulge in conjectures. The analysis of such issues is called metaphysics, and no competent metaphysician would make such a statement. If you'd started 'In my opinion...' then I wouldn't have said a word.

 

You certainly cannot post the statement above and hope to avoid a religious argument. This seems pretty obvious.

 

What you call 'common knowledge' is nothing of the sort. It is a common conjecture but nothing to do with knowledge. It will be a disaster for your research if you mistake popular opinion for the facts.

 

The more rigorous approach would be to avoid such dogmatic statements until you can prove they are true, or at least are able to refer us to someone who can. That one statement would be enough to ensure that your post could not be published in a decent journal. So it's not that I'm arguing about how the universe began. I just react badly to dogmaticism and lack of rigour. The topics warrant a more scientific approach.

 

I think you could get away with saying that matter is prior to life, although I can think of a couple of possible objections, but whoever first proves that matter is prior to consciousness will be on for a Nobel prize.

Edited April 3, 2014 by PeterJ

[MirceaKitsune]

Although the building blocks of life are indeed part of what makes the universe, or were likely there since its early days, life itself evolved later within this system. As a professional documantary on this subject said, the universe took a long time to cool down after its creation. If I remember right, it was also mentioned that only millions of years later light actually appeared, when the first sources of light came to be.

 

The only thing I stated (because it's obvious and known fact) is that there weren't conscious beings floating all over through blackness before the big-bang brought matter, who themselves contributed to matter being what it is and designed how particles work. Planets formed later, and conscious / aware / intelligent life evolved after that... unless we're talking about creatures which can float through space which evolution might have even created before planets and suns. But even if life here on Earth (including people and beliefs about gods) wouldn't have existed, as well life on any other planet, there would still be the same galaxies and solar systems orbiting and doing the same thing. No one put them there by hand, and there's no consciousness causing all those stars to sit there.

 

This is the only thing I wanted to state. If people think it's insane or offending to believe that matter can exist before conscious life, I'm probably very outdated on some subjects.

Edited April 3, 2014 by MirceaKitsune

[PeterJ]

Not at all insane or offending, but not proven. You are assuming that biological life must be prior to consciousness, but this is a very big assumption and it there could never be a way to confirm the truth of it. So feel free to hang to to your opinions, but note that they are not known to be facts. To simply take it for granted that matter is prior to consciousness is contrary to the entire spirit of physics and philosophy. To state that it is would be a certain mistake. I could just as easily state that consciousness is prior to matter. Then we may as well arm-wrestle for who is right. These wild statements get us nowhere.

 

Better to ask: How would we go about proving that matter is post or prior to consciousness? If we cannot answer this then obviously the jury must remain out until we do. .

Edited April 3, 2014 by PeterJ

[MirceaKitsune]

Yes... I do actually remember there is a competing theory (which isn't worth discrediting entirely) that all matter and everything we see might be created either by the mind of each individual, or by the combined consciousnes of all living beings. I actually used to believe that fairly recently, but heard enough contradictions I actually thought it was just my lack of knowledge and this is officialy false from science's point of view. Regardless of my certainty on this matter, I didn't mean to throw mud over this theory and its followers if there is one still standing.

 

The primary reason why I said "all planets / stars are there and doing their thing regardless if there's life to observe them or not" is that particles are made of energy that's exterior (to some extent) from individual living beings. All creatures (at least in a physical world like we know of) observe their environment through input functions designed into their body... such as eyes to see and ears to hear. So for instance, observing an object means that the object reflects rays of light into a person's eye, and the brain's sophisticated mechanism interprets that signal.

 

This would mean that if no living being received such input from a group of particles, those particles would cease existing. There's no way to test whether this is true or not, but there's really no logical or theoretical basis (at least that I know of) which would give this hopes being possible. Beyond that, if it was the case we would probably see some very weird results, such as: A person locks an object in a room where no one else can ever see / hear it or know about it, notes down what the object is, asks someone completely unaware to open the room only after he dies of old age and read the node afterward, then once this happens the viewer might find something else than what the person put inside. Also, if someone was able to convince themself beyond any doubt that a glass of wine exists in an empty shelf, they would find one when they opened the door. Such behavior should be inevitably recorded throughout history if conscious awareness was needed to make matter be there... unless an all-seeing being is constantly watching every quark in every particle of every atom in every single thing in this universe.

 

Beyond that, I don't see how a conscious mind might be simulating (or rather emulating) all those complex rules of the universe... some that might not be known by any living being in it. Think about this: 300 years ago, no one even imegined quantum physics. Yet phenomenons which are tied to it happened exactly as they do today. It creates a "chicken and the egg" paradox: For life that's even slightly aware of its surroundings to develop, it needs a form to manifest in... a system which includes seeing hearing touching or anything which can receive input, and help that consciousness learn its surroundings and make sense of them. But to create any form such as biological life, you need matter first. There's no logical way in which life intelligent enough to know how such physics of the universe existed after the first moments of the universe's birth, when laws such as attraction between particles were already there.

 

I'm glad I posted this, since it also answers the initial question of the thread... at least my view of it I mean. But it's the main reason why I believe matter will not change its behavior when not observed... even if I strongly think that consciousness can interact with matter in ways people are yet to discover. Yes, I am inclined to believe telekinesis is possible for example... so when a consciousness is strong enough it can act over a group of particles, although this would be very rare with humans and all known life.

[StringJunky]

..., but whoever first proves that matter is prior to consciousness will be on for a Nobel prize.

Consciousness is an emergent effect arising from interactions within certain arrangements of matter so - logically - matter came first. Anything else is religion. If you think consciousness is not organically derived drink a few big bottles of whatever you fancy and tell me your consciousness is independent of your body.

Edited April 3, 2014 by StringJunky

[MirceaKitsune]

Consciousness is an emergent effect arising from interactions within certain arrangements of matter so - logically - matter came first. Anything else is religion.

 

I mostly share the same opinion, though again I don't want to actually offend those who don't. It's not always religion either... I used to believe something similar before I got more directly into science, though I was never religious nor believed any religious statements.

 

Oh, and one more thing I forgot to mention: I believe PeterJ mentioned wishful thinking over me disregarding the idea of consciousness fueling matter or existing prior to it. I remember that when I accepted the idea that matter was there first, it actually came as rather a shock, and it was a scary thing to think of. I felt much more comfortable with the idea that everything we experience is created by our minds, even if we don't have control of it directly (hence why we can't fly like Peter Pan). I still wouldn't mind living in such an universe if one existed, so if I was wishfully thinking it would be opposite of what I'm stating here.

Edited April 3, 2014 by MirceaKitsune

[StringJunky]

 

I mostly share the same opinion, though again I don't want to actually offend those who don't. It's not always religion either... I used to believe something similar before I got more directly into science, though I was never religious nor believed any religious statements.

If people are offended by such things they shouldn't post on a science site. He knows the score anyway ..par for the course.

[PeterJ]

I thought this was a science forum. Yet apparently rigour and method is to be abandoned, and we should just shout our opinions as if they are facts. It is ridiculous, How is one supposed to have sensible discussion under the circumstances? Do we just keep insisting that our guess about consciousness is true, and then try to shout each other out? What about gravity? Might the same method work? Or do we admit what we do not know and consider the possibilities calmly and rationally.

 

But this is not the point. My complaint did not mention my view on consciousness and it is irrelevant. What matters that we don't go around a science forum stating that we know the truth about some issue when we very obviously do not. If we are not able or willing to distinguish between what we do and do not know then this is probably not a good place to demonstrate it. .

 

For goodness sake. It's like a nest of angry hornets.

 

 

 

.

.

[Strange]

Better to ask: How would we go about proving that matter is post or prior to consciousness? If we cannot answer this then obviously the jury must remain out until we do. .

 

That assumes that all opinions or beliefs have equal weight. That is obviously not true. There is evidence that consciousness could arise from arrangements of matter. There is zero evidence that consciousness exists independently of matter.

 

Therefore, on balance of probabilities, we can assume that consciousness is an emergent property of our brains ... until some evidence is presented to contradict that.

[Prometheus]

What about gravity? Might the same method work?

 

But gravity is a well defined idea of a thing said to exist that has subsequently been confirmed with lots of evidence.

 

You are asking us to provide evidence for something (consciousness independent of matter?) which we think does not exist.

 

Rather it is up to you to provide evidence of it if you think it exists.

 

Otherwise scientists would be forced to spend their whole time trying to disprove the vast number of things humans have thought up - flying spaghetti monsters, orbiting teacups, pink unicorns, any of the millions of gods various people say exist...

 

If you had good reason to suspect consciousness exists independent of matter, please share (perhaps on another thread), and then someone might be convinced to look into it. At the moment we have good reason to suspect the non-existence of consciousness without matter - separating heads from bodies is just the most extreme form of seeing consciousness being altered by a physical process.

 

 

Better to ask: How would we go about proving that matter is post or prior to consciousness? If we cannot answer this then obviously the jury must remain out until we do. .

 

If it cannot be proved either way, then the null position would be the most sensible to take surely? Especially if the claim is that matter-less consciousness does not interact with the physical (if it did interact, would be able to detect it by it's effect on matter) - then whether it exists or not has no bearing on us what-so-ever. Might as well just say we don't believe it exists unless evidence to the contrary does appear.

 

Based on this I think it safe to assume consciousness do not exist before matter in the same way we can assume god doesn't infere with experiments just to mess with scientists - though I can't prove he doesn't.

[PeterJ]

It doesn't matter a damn to me what people assume. What matters is that they know the difference between an assumption and a fact. This was my simple point.

 

The relevant posts above are full of assumptions presented as facts, display a poor knowledge of consciousness studies and have no respect for rigour. Is this really a good way to discuss consciousness? It's not a discussion I'd join, except to complain about the woolly New Age approach that's being taken.

 

Prometheus - I'm not asking for proof of anything. I'm not making any claim about consciousness. I'm making a claim about ignorance. I'm suggesting that most of the statements people are making here about consciousness are unscientific, unproved, display a lack of scholarship and are not dispassionate.

[Strange]

Prometheus - I'm not asking for proof of anything. I'm not making any claim about consciousness. I'm making a claim about ignorance. I'm suggesting that most of the statements people are making here about consciousness are unscientific, unproved, display a lack of scholarship and are not dispassionate.

 

Or maybe this is just a discussion forum and people are not being as rigorous in expressing their thoughts as they would be in a more formal report.

 

 

It's not a discussion I'd join, except to complain about the woolly New Age approach that's being taken

 

I see nothing woolly or New Age, about assuming the default position in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Strange

[PeterJ]

Okay. It's not my forum. If we are going for informality and lack of rigour that's fine by me. Just change the name to 'pubchatforum.com so people don't get the wrong idea about the forum.

 

I see no problem in making assumptions either. I assume that people here are interested in science and the scientific method. So why not use it? The method is not to 'reify' opinions and assumptions as if they are facts. People regularly do this, of course, but it's a personal; thing. To state in public that 'consciousness is like this or like that' when we have no idea which it correct is just plain daft. It causes discussions to turn into shouting matches, and it certainly does not help our understanding of anything.

 

We could be sharing knowledge rather than arguing dogmatically for our unfounded opinions. Besides, to conduct our research by assuming that we already know the result is not a sane thing to do.

[MirceaKitsune]

Here's one problem: When do you conclude research has proven something and that something is known fact? Sometimes, not even a mathematical formula stands as 100% proof. While at other times there aren't mathematics there yet, but something is obviously happening... for example if people observed quantum physics before anyone wrote formula for them, they'd know quantum laws exist.

 

In this case, what would qualify as proof for the statement that consciousness came before or after matter? At least until spirituality will be explained in a scientific and not religious way, we need to draw conclusions from something. Considering things such as the evolution of life (taking place on planets which imply they formed first) and all the complex laws of physics which I don't see how a consciousness could have put there and be maintaining since before the beginning of time itself, the only conclusion is that consciousness evolves after the physics and chemestry of a planet create a body that it can manifest in.

[Strange]

Here's one problem: When do you conclude research has proven something and that something is known fact?

 

Never. Scientific knowledge is always provisional and based on the best evidence we have at the moment.

 

I guess PeterJ would like every statement of (apparent) fact to be prefaced with "As far as we know..." or "The evidence is consistent with..." and suffix it with "... based on our current understanding."

 

But that soon gets very tedious so we state things like "gravity is caused by the curvature of space-time" as if they were facts. Whereas, what we really mean is that "our current best theory very successfully models gravity as the intrinsic curvature of a space-time pseudo-Riemannian manifold however this is not compatible with quantum theory and so will probably be extended or replaced at some time in the future".

[PeterJ]

That's about it, Strange. I can see that in many scientific discussions it is possible to ignore the phrase you put in italics, and it would be impractical to keep repeating it. But when it comes to the ontological priority of matter and consciousness this is the cutting edge of debate and research. There is nothing like a consensus, and whichever view we take it is untestable in the sciences. On such highly debatable and fantastically important philosophical matters there is no case for making dogmatic statements as if we've already done the research. Just the addition of the phrase, 'it seems to me' would do the trick. 'Here's why' would be a bonus. Otherwise the speaker will appear to be a closed-minded fundamentalist not worth talking to, Such statements do not flatter the reader's perception of the author's clarity of thought.

 

Admittedly, it is common for people to state their preferred metaphysical conjecture as if it is a fact, but no amount of wrongs make a right.

[Strange]

Although, you again ignore the fact that there is evidence consistent with one point of view and none that supports the other. So it is only "consciousness exists independently of matter" that is an unsupported belief.

[MirceaKitsune]

Although, you again ignore the fact that there is evidence consistent with one point of view and none that supports the other. So it is only "consciousness exists independently of matter" that is an unsupported belief.

 

One detail to clarify: I do believe that consciousness exists independently of matter as we know it to an extent... it might for example be similar to energy. Just that for consciousness to form / evolve / manifest, it needs a form under which it experiences life, and that form is created by matter and physics (the first bacteria). The "building blocks" necessary for creating a consciousness were most likely brought by the big bang too, or formed from effects inside this universe... hence why I believe matter in various forms was all that could have been there first.

[StringJunky]

 

One detail to clarify: I do believe that consciousness exists independently of matter as we know it to an extent... it might for example be similar to energy.

Energy is a property of things and does not exist independently ...just like life or consciousness.

Edited April 7, 2014 by StringJunky

[PeterJ]

There is no scientific evidence either way, Strange, so I'm not sure how you arrive at your position. Metaphysical analysis suggests that matter and mind are co-dependent, but this is not decisive. The teachings of Buddhism on this matter are unfalsifiable, however, so you'll be banging your head against a brick wall for a thousand years if you try to prove some other theory. Please note that I have not given my view on the ontology of consciousness and matter here, and don't intend to.

 

Where is this evidence you speak of that is consistent with only one point of view? The only evidence I know is consistent with my view, obviously, since I take careful notice of evidence, but maybe there's some evidence I don't know about.

 

Stringjunky - I don't see your comment as contradicting the idea that consciousness is like energy. although it would have interesting consequences.

Edited April 7, 2014 by PeterJ

[Prometheus]

You have evidence then? Please start a new thread and share.

[Strange]

Please note that I have not given my view on the ontology of consciousness and matter here, and don't intend to.

 

So if you are not willing to justify or present evidence for your position this is pretty pointless.

 

 

The teachings of Buddhism

 

And here's me thinking this was a science forum.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Strange