Quantum Physics and Consciousness

[PrimoTurbo]

I?ve heard the theory that this world is not merely physical and that consciousness exists outside of the physical world. Furthermore consciousness actually shapes what we see, until something realizes what it sees it doesn?t come into existence, because matter is only a range of possibilities.

This basically this means that anything or anyone can influence the world with their thoughts.

Does anyone know more about this theory? It obviously sounds very far fetched but I don?t think anyone can scientifically disprove it because experiments suggest that things influence each other outside of the physical world.

[dreamz Veteran]

are you sure it's quantum physics?

i'm writing a philosophy text that discusses that, but it's not based in quantum mechanics.

if you've read searle, you'll find he supports an abstract physicalism. he holds the view that consciousness is a feature of lower level phenomena, i.e. neural activities. others hold an identity theory of consciousness, associating every instance of consciousness with a particular symbolic activity lit by neural activity. some argue about supervenience, in which consciousness is a higher level phenomenon not reducible to lower level activities, but nonetheless tied to them.

[cyberfrem]

Can someone translate that last post into laymans terms?

[PrimoTurbo]

are you sure it's quantum physics?

i'm writing a philosophy text that discusses that, but it's not based in quantum mechanics.

if you've read searle, you'll find he supports an abstract physicalism.  he holds the view that consciousness is a feature of lower level phenomena, i.e. neural activities.  others hold an identity theory of consciousness, associating every instance of consciousness with a particular symbolic activity lit by neural activity.  some argue about supervenience, in which consciousness is a higher level phenomenon not reducible to lower level activities, but nonetheless tied to them.

585895041[/snapback]

Yes I think it is based on experiments from quantum mechanics, sorry I don't have direct references I've only heard about this from other people I don't know how accurate it is. Has anyone else heard anything like this?

[dreamz Veteran]

Can someone translate that last post into laymans terms?

585895052[/snapback]

which part?

searle argues that consciousness is a higher level "feature" (his word) of lower level neural activity. while we can't pick out a certain molecule of water and say that it is wet, we can say that wetness is a feature of h20 molecules.

the identity theory asserts that we can associate every instance of consciousness with a particular physical manifestation in the brain.

a supervenient feature is one that occurs on the higher level, but cannot be reduced to the lower level (though it must be necessary).

[dreamz Veteran]

Yes I think it is based on experiments from quantum mechanics, sorry I don't have direct references I've only heard about this from other people I don't know how accurate it is. Has anyone else heard anything like this?

585895119[/snapback]

what are the experiments?

the problem with something like this is people start appropriating results from quantum mechanics 1) without understanding the results completely in that particular context, and 2) without understanding that they can't always transpose results without the necessary modifications. a lot of literature these days that claim to be interdisciplinary are bogus.

[PrimoTurbo]

From what I understand it's based somewhat on the EPR paradox/experiments.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclope...PR_paradox2.htm

Basicly two objects can effect each other with out any possible way of communication in the physical world.

[alsheron]

This world is far more than just what we perceive on the physical level with our 5 senses. New Scientist magazine recently had an article which discussed "scientists" finally accepting that the world/universe is filled with an invisible "ether", a view held up until roughly the 17th Century.

The fallacy "If we can't see it, it doesn't exist" is perhaps slowly eroding......

dreamz, i have to say that your post, while clearly based on accurate information is unfortunately unclear. There is very little background information to the ideas you convey, and the term "supervenient" in this context is entirely abstract.

One cannot assert that: "Supervenient......is one..." without clearly specifying what the "one" refers to, although your efforts are to be applauded.

Now if i can just fit my head through this doorway, I may be able to prepare for myself a dilute solution of tannic acid prepared with some sugar and milk......mmmm....

[dreamz Veteran]

well, i didn't know how much people knew about it. supervenience generally refers to the fact that some higher level phenomena (like a mental event), while it cannot be reduced to the lower level one (e.g. neuron firings) cannot exist as it is without those lower level events. the argument is usually used for moral descriptions, but has since been used in the philosophy of mind. philosophers like davidson argue for supervenience of mental events on physical events.

as for the epr paradox, it usually relates to the spin of particles and non-locality. i'm reading through that page you posted to see what it says about consciousness.

[FloatingFatMan]

That wet splat you just heard was my brain dribbling out my ear & running for it! :huh:

Damn this is some seriously high-brow stuff for a forum! I'm impressed! :yes:

[PrimoTurbo]

That article doesn't say anything about consciousness, a different theory does that but I cannot recall what it's called and I'm acctually wondering if people have heard more about this.

[dreamz Veteran]

i just did a google search: http://www.google.com/search?q=epr+paradox...n-US:unofficial

quantum consciousness?

i'm going through this article now: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenge...nsciousness.pdf

i read a book on quantum consciousness. it was junk.

[kronik]

would this have anything to do with the multiverse theory?

[PrimoTurbo]

I found what I was looking for, the theory is led by Amit Goswami, he was also in "What the bleep do we know"

More info here

Before you read any further, stop and close your eyes for a moment. Now consider the following question: for the moment your eyes were closed, did the world still exist even though you weren't conscious of it? How do you know? If this sounds like the kind of unanswerable brain teaser your Philosophy 101 professor used to employ to stretch your philosophical imagination, you might be surprised to discover that there are actually physicists at reputable universities who believe they have answered this question?and their answer, believe it or not, is no.

Now consider something even more intriguing. Imagine for a moment the entire history of the universe. According to all the data scientists have been able to gather, it exploded into existence some fifteen billion years ago, setting the stage for a cosmic dance of energy and light that continues to this day. Now imagine the history of planet Earth. An amorphous cloud of dust emerging out of that primordial fireball, it slowly coalesced into a solid orb, found its way into gravitational orbit around the sun, and through a complex interaction of light and gases over billions of years, generated an atmosphere and a biosphere capable of not only giving birth to, but sustaining and proliferating, life.

Now imagine that none of the above ever happened. Consider instead the possibility that the entire story only existed as an abstract potential?a cosmic dream among countless other cosmic dreams?until, in that dream, life somehow evolved to the point that a conscious, sentient being came into existence. At that moment, solely because of the conscious observation of that individual, the entire universe, including all of the history leading up to that point, suddenly came into being. Until that moment, nothing had actually ever happened. In that moment, fifteen billion years happened. If this sounds like nothing more than a complicated backdrop for a science fiction story or a secular version of one of the world's great creation myths, hold on to your hat. According to physicist Amit Goswami, the above description is a scientifically viable explanation of how the universe came into being.

Goswami is convinced, along with a number of others who subscribe to the same view, that the universe, in order to exist, requires a conscious sentient being to be aware of it. Without an observer, he claims, it only exists as a possibility. And as they say in the world of science, Goswami has done his math. Marshalling evidence from recent research in cognitive psychology, biology, parapsychology and quantum physics, and leaning heavily on the ancient mystical traditions of the world, Goswami is building a case for a new paradigm that he calls "monistic idealism," the view that consciousness, not matter, is the foundation of everything that is.

[dreamz Veteran]

I found what I was looking for, the theory is led by Amit Goswami, he was also in "What the bleep do we know"

More info here

585900483[/snapback]

ahh, just what i thought. i knew amit goswami would come up somehow. lots of people find his theory to be of dubious value.

moreover, most agree that "what the bleep do we know" is in fact nothing more than a brochure for new agey pseudoscience.

i will find some articles on that.

edit: here's a short one. http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html

let me find some more.

but i hate how new agey folk appropriate material they don't always understand (or even if they do) and distort it.

another: http://www.rickross.com/reference/ramtha/ramtha13.html

and a recent one by michael shermer, self-professed skeptic and author of several books on pseudoscience: http://home.hockaday.org/HockadayNet/acade...p%20Shermer.pdf

[PrimoTurbo]

Thanks for the information, I?m just starting to read through.

[remix17]

If there is no conscious observer, then there is no reason for the world to exist. Just like the tree that fell in the forest didn't make a sound unless someone was listening. I believe there is a direct connection between physical reality and consciousness.

[dreamz Veteran]

If there is no conscious observer, then there is no reason for the world to exist. Just like the tree that fell in the forest didn't make a sound unless someone was listening. I believe there is a direct connection between physical reality and consciousness.

586637523[/snapback]

i would say:

there may or may not exist a world beyond consciousness, but we cannot know it. to say that there isn't is to suppose more than we know. to say that there is a world beyond it is also to suppose more than we know. the most we can say is that such a world is posited as being there or as not being there.