Our mind.

[Eldad Eshel]

I see the universe as composed of two components, classical and quantum, with the mind a meeting of those two elements. Being a component of the universe, the mind has no choice in the matter, and that meeting generates conversations in our "event horizon" which we can see from the classical side...and attempt to repeat within the calculus of the moment...

The quantum world is where you go down scale and our known universe breaks up into quanta. Us as humans beings we are in the middle between the lowest and highest scale. We basically belong entirely to what you called the classical world, and so does everything about us, if it is the mind, the soul and so on.

[hoola]

it would seem possible that some of the process of human thought occurs on the sub-micron level, so within some quantum influence, although the "output" only appears classically

[Strange]

it would seem possible that some of the process of human thought occurs on the sub-micron level, so within some quantum influence, although the "output" only appears classically

 

Possible, maybe. But you would need to provide some evidence for it to be taken seriously.

[Robittybob1]

 

Possible, maybe. But you would need to provide some evidence for it to be taken seriously.

How is the "sub-micron level" defined? Is just the distance/diameter?

as in the Websters Dictionary definition of submicron:

1

: being less than a micron in a (specified) measurement and especially in diameter <a submicron particle>

 

So that would include visual pigments would it? Small crystals of magnetite would they be included.

[CharonY]

Yes it just means less than a micron (roughly size of organelle) and it is a common fluff piece to mention quantum effects for added mysticism. Actually, quantum effects tend to be relevant when we go into the lower nm range. And when you think about it, they are part of normal biochemical processes, and not specific to something like the mind. Many electron transfer reactions are best modeled via quantum tunneling, for example. In many ways, it is rather mundane, but complicated.

[Strange]

Indeed. Apart from the fact that chemistry (and therefore the functioning of the brain) depends on quantum effects there seems no reason to ascribe the mind to mysterious quantum mysticism.

[hoola]

I can only suggest evidence that is readily avialable on the web....and some seemingly credible things are said that tend to suggest that the submicron size of dna components of neurons turning on and off, may have some assist in accomplishing the thought process. So, thought is not a "normal biochemical process"? In no way am I suggesting any mystical elements into the discussion, but why would the brain be off limits to quantum effects which the rest of the body seems, by your own admission, to employ? If a houseplant can use quantum effects in improving efficiency in the chlorophyll cycle as has been suggested, couldn't the effects have aided the mind's ability to forsee dangers and make human survival more likely, within individuals who "paid attention" to it's novel outputs? .

Edited February 8, 2016 by hoola

[CharonY]

You are arguing as if quantum effects would add something new to the processes. But they don't. Quantum effects do not increase efficiency of photosynthesis, they are part of it. Virtually anything in the molecular regime is governed by quantum effects if you try to follow the events precisely. However, in chemistry we utilize stochastic models to approximate these events as it is easier and still reasonable accurate for what we want to do. And again, just because we are not really good at bridging the quantum world with the macroscopic world mathematically it does not mean that by adding quantum to the mix we change the output on the macroscopic world.

Rather, what we see is the result of all the effects happening on the smaller scale. It is the same, not an added effect.

[hoola]

I am also arguing that the quantum processes were "always there", but only with an internal ability to respond to and begin to understand their outputs, do they become "macroscopic" in our worlds.

[Strange]

I can only suggest evidence that is readily avialable on the web....

 

Such as? Care to provide some links?

 

and some seemingly credible things are said that tend to suggest that the submicron size of dna components of neurons turning on and off, may have some assist in accomplishing the thought process.

 

Said by whom? Care to provide some links?

 

And it is not really clear what you are saying here. Of course the function of neurons is affected by genes being activated or otherwise. And of course these are "sub micron" processes. Because chemistry.

 

If a houseplant can use quantum effects in improving efficiency in the chlorophyll cycle as has been suggested,

 

That is just chemistry.

 

 

couldn't the effects have aided the mind's ability to forsee dangers and make human survival more likely, within individuals who "paid attention" to it's novel outputs?

 

Absence of any evidence?

Edited February 8, 2016 by Strange

[hoola]

my (admittedly weak) "evidence" is our ability to build things such as transistors and have some understanding of why they work as they do, inferring some "quantumlike" functional analogue within the minds that created them, specifically, those individuals who "paid attention" to their outputs...A relevant question would be : could quantum devices be conceived and constructed without quantum assisted thinking?

Edited February 8, 2016 by hoola

[dimreepr]

I am also arguing that the quantum processes were "always there", but only with an internal ability to respond to and begin to understand their outputs, do they become "macroscopic" in our worlds.

 

 

The quantum and the macroscopic are the same world; it’s just a question of probability.

[Robittybob1]

Indeed. Apart from the fact that chemistry (and therefore the functioning of the brain) depends on quantum effects there seems no reason to ascribe the mind to mysterious quantum mysticism.

Are you saying "apart from the fact that chemistry (and therefore the functioning of the brain) depends on quantum effects there seems no reason to ascribe the mind to quantum effects"? I want to know what was the phrase "mysterious quantum mysticism", that you used, actually referring to in a scientific sense?

[dimreepr]

Are you saying "apart from the fact that chemistry (and therefore the functioning of the brain) depends on quantum effects there seems no reason to ascribe the mind to quantum effects"? I want to know what was the phrase "mysterious quantum mysticism", that you used, actually referring to in a scientific sense?

 

 

It means, the larger the set the less probability is a factor.

[hoola]

I don't see how the quantum is equated with mysticism in this discussion...? Lack of complete understanding is not "mysticism" (a rather nefarious term).

Edited February 8, 2016 by hoola

[dimreepr]

I don't see how the quantum is equated with mysticism in this discussion...? Lack of complete understanding is not "mysticism" (a rather nefarious term).

 

 

You’re right “A lack of complete understanding” is not mystic, it’s universal, but how is it (typically of an action or activity) wicked or criminal. "the nefarious activities of the organized-crime syndicates"?

[hoola]

it is nefarious as it implies a possiblity that we will never understand fully the things in question, reflects badly upon human intellect..and injects a religious tone of acceptance of defeat...

Edited February 8, 2016 by hoola

[dimreepr]

it is nefarious as it implies a possiblity that we will never understand fully the things in question, reflects badly upon human intellect..and injects a religious tone of acceptance of defeat...

 

 

Knowledge that we can’t understand everything isn’t accepting defeat anymore than it’s nefarious and is neither religious nor defeatist; it’s just an acceptance that knowledge/understanding is limited.

[Strange]

my (admittedly weak) "evidence" is our ability to build things such as transistors and have some understanding of why they work as they do, inferring some "quantumlike" functional analogue within the minds that created them, specifically, those individuals who "paid attention" to their outputs...

 

That doesn't require any '"quantumlike" functional analogue within the mind'. It just requires a good grasp of mathematics.

 

 

A relevant question would be : could quantum devices be conceived and constructed without quantum assisted thinking?

 

Of course.

Are you saying "apart from the fact that chemistry (and therefore the functioning of the brain) depends on quantum effects there seems no reason to ascribe the mind to quantum effects"? I want to know what was the phrase "mysterious quantum mysticism", that you used, actually referring to in a scientific sense?

 

Too many people think along the lines of "I don't understand consciousness and I don't understand quantum theory, so they must be connected". This is the starting point for all sorts of quantum woo such as hoola's posts. It is based on ignorance and mysticism.

I don't see how the quantum is equated with mysticism in this discussion...?

 

I mean this sort of pseudoscientific drivel:

I see the universe as composed of two components, classical and quantum, with the mind a meeting of those two elements. Being a component of the universe, the mind has no choice in the matter, and that meeting generates conversations in our "event horizon" which we can see from the classical side...and attempt to repeat within the calculus of the moment...

[Gees]

Boys and Girls;

What is all this nonsense about mysticism? From what I have read, you don't even know what it actually is, so why are you employing ignorance to debate it? This is not the religion forum.

I did a thread search on the word, mysticism, because I was curious as to how this thread fell apart so badly. I found that CharonY first brought up mysticism in post # 55, then Strange picked up the ball and ran with it in post # 56. CharonY contributed some interesting on-topic information along with the unfortunate opinions regarding "fluff" and "mysticism". Between them, they got six up votes for the preposterous assumptions. This is not surprising, as I have noted before that the click-it squad is not terribly familiar with higher intelligence.

Then Hoola asked why mysticism was even brought into the discussion, espousing a very valid, intelligent, and rational position. (He received no up votes for this questioning.) Now it appears that Hoola is the one supporting mysticism? This is outrageous manipulation. Any rational, logical, person, who doubts what I am stating, can simply go back and read the thread again. The facts are all there.

What we call "mysticism" is actually an interpretation by the rational aspect of mind. And what is it interpreting? Well, that would be the fifth and lowest known level, or stratum, of the unconscious aspect of mind. This is the level that deals with delusion, angels and demons, and other mystical ideas. Although it is part of mind, the reality is that it is only a part and not well known or understood, so it would require its own thread if you wish to discuss it. Or one could say that studying mysticism in order to understand mind would be a lot like studying a foot, blind, in order to understand the human body.

If we are going to study mind, then we need to study the whole of mind. We can not "cherry pick" the parts we like, or don't like. So let's send the kiddies to bed, and advise the overly superstitious to please make appointments with their priests/preachers. The rest of us would like to discuss mind.

Gee

Hoola;

You are becoming an interesting person in my mind. I have noted that some of your other posts displayed the ideas of a thinking mind, but your following post really impressed me.

 

I see the universe as composed of two components, classical and quantum, with the mind a meeting of those two elements. Being a component of the universe, the mind has no choice in the matter, and that meeting generates conversations in our "event horizon" which we can see from the classical side...and attempt to repeat within the calculus of the moment...

 

Most people do not understand the extreme differences in the way the conscious and unconscious aspects of mind actually work. Describing mind as a "meeting of those two" is really very good.

For a long time it was thought that there was no logic in the unconscious aspect of mind. It made no sense to anyone. It was Dr. Blanco who unlocked the secrets of the unconscious by realizing that logic is dependent upon time -- there is no logic without time and cause and effect. Rational also requires time as logic and rationalization are both linear thought processes.

The unconscious mind is neither logical nor is it rational, because it does not recognize time. It ignores time, which is probably one of the reasons why people relate it to quantum physics. The unconscious "thinks" in terms of relationships, or entanglements, which is another similarity, and it associates things symmetrically -- another similarity. So it is very different and not really very adapted to a causal reality.

There is one thing that you got wrong. There is not an "event horizon", as there appear to be five event horizons -- at least. Dr. Blanco designated the levels or stratums of the unconscious by evaluating how much of the rational mind v the unconscious mind was in control of each level. His understanding of the unconscious is accepted by psychology and has not been disputed to my knowledge.

You can find some of his ideas in Wiki. It is a relatively short read, and I think you will find it interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Matte_Blanco

Gee

Edited February 11, 2016 by Gees

[imatfaal]

 

Boys and Girls;

What is all this nonsense about mysticism? From what I have read, you don't even know what it actually is, so why are you employing ignorance to debate it? This is not the religion forum.

I did a thread search on the word, mysticism, because I was curious as to how this thread fell apart so badly. I found that CharonY first brought up mysticism in post # 55, then Strange picked up the ball and ran with it in post # 56. CharonY contributed some interesting on-topic information along with the unfortunate opinions regarding "fluff" and "mysticism". Between them, they got six up votes for the preposterous assumptions. This is not surprising, as I have noted before that the click-it squad is not terribly familiar with higher intelligence.

Then Hoola asked why mysticism was even brought into the discussion, espousing a very valid, intelligent, and rational position. (He received no up votes for this questioning.) Now it appears that Hoola is the one supporting mysticism? This is outrageous manipulation. Any rational, logical, person, who doubts what I am stating, can simply go back and read the thread again. The facts are all there.

 

I am pretty sure someone brought up Nirvana (which is a mystical experience in terms of super sensory perception) and unitive ascetic practices before then

[hoola]

well, I certainly don't think an "event horizon" occurs within the mind, that is a rough analogy of the black hole issue, where the quantum effect meets the geometric. The interface within mind is strictly one of perceptive properties of the two data streams used to "analyze" both internal and external stimuli. I do think there are 3 co-processors within the human mind, reptilian, mammalian and human, but that is another discussion. As far as "re-interjecting" mysticism into the discussion, I only say that quantum properties are largely unknown at this point, shall be understood in time, and fear of failure of that challenge is yet another reason to drag out the "M" word as a form of self-protection of the ego...thanks for the link, I shall look into it...

[Strange]

well, I certainly don't think an "event horizon" occurs within the mind, that is a rough analogy of the black hole issue, where the quantum effect meets the geometric.

 

Event horizons are purely a consequence of general relativity. They have nothing to do with quantum theory. They might even disappear in a theory of quantum gravity.

 

I do think there are 3 co-processors within the human mind, reptilian, mammalian and human, but that is another discussion.

 

That idea has been pretty thoroughly debunked. (By science.)

 

As far as "re-interjecting" mysticism into the discussion, I only say that quantum properties are largely unknown at this point

 

I assume you mean: unknown to you. You could fix that by learning some science instead of making things up.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Strange

[Gees]

Imatfaal;

 

Please consider:

 

I am pretty sure someone brought up Nirvana (which is a mystical experience in terms of super sensory perception) and unitive ascetic practices before then

 

I also brought up "God" and the original post mentions "soul", so does that mean this thread is about mysticism? No. It is about mind, which is pretty damned mysterious on its own without adding complications.

 

What is mysticism? It is a mental idea produced by the mind; therefore, it can be relevant to the study of mind. On the other hand, mysticism is also a catch-all word to describe anything that is believed and also mental, mysterious, and unknown. That covers a lot of territory and delves deeply into religion, so as I stated, it would require its own thread to be studied.

 

How does one take the mystery out of mysticism or mind? Or make the unknown, known? By studying and understanding it. I brought up seeking Nirvana because there are some things that are known, and well documented, about it. There are monks, who have actually learned how to control their breathing, their heart rate, and their reaction to pain. These are all things that are involuntary and work through the unconscious aspect of mind. I don't give two hoots about their beliefs, I am interested in the idea that they have learned to control some of the unconscious with the conscious mind. This is interesting and adds to my knowledge of mind.

 

It can be stated that seeking Nirvana is part of mysticism, but it is only a part of mysticism. There is a great deal under the heading of mysticism that has nothing to do with seeking Nirvana -- so the two ideas are not the same, nor are they equal. Consider the following quote from Dr. Blanco's file in Wiki:

 

In particular, 'Matte Blanco shows us that (to the unconscious) "the part can represent the whole" and that "past, present, and future are all the same"'.[2]

 

So in order for someone to see my explanation regarding Nirvana as mysticism, they would be considering the "part" as "representing the whole", or one could say that it was an unconscious association. We know that the unconscious mind is reactive, rather than self directed, and that it reacts to feelings and emotion. So it is my thought that fear of the unknown and fear of mysterious mysticism is what caused that association; hence, my comments about superstition.

 

Gee

[imatfaal]

Gees

 

Your cod-psychoanalysing is embarrassing to you and insulting to me - please stop.