Quantum Consciousness?
I cannot prove the existence of God, but I can experience the awe and mystery and beauty of love and sense the presence of something beyond my materially based thinking. I hope that you can do the same regardless of what you believe. Just don't go on automatic pilot like so many brain-dead scientists who knee-jerk to the tune of "God is dead" and all is mechanical meat. Be an agnostic. Believe as little as you can in anything but try and experience as much as you can of everything.
The above words are from the website of Fred Alan Wolf, Phd. Dr. Wolf is a theoretical physicist who has spent his entire career searching for the origins of consciousness and its place in the cosmos. As a key figure in the film What the Bleep Do We Really Know? he explains to us that matter and mind are inseparable, that mind actually forms matter. This is a view widely espoused by mystics, new agers, and hippie types, but to hear it from an honest to God physicist is refreshing. This guy got his Phd from UCLA and has taught at prestigious universities worldwide. He is not just some crackpot who makes wild claims without support, but an ever curious and enquiring scientist who regularly publishes his work in peer reviewed journals. Perhaps you materialists (those who believe mind is somehow explained via physicality) out there should give him a read.....
http://www.fredalanwolf.com
posted by Kyle Vernon @ 2:11 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
hmm, well, its nice that someone with some prety deep knowledge is thinking about this stuff and posting ideas where they can be read.
However, what I've read thus far (an article about how quantum mechanics and conciousness might be related) isn't convincing at all. Its mostly vague handwaving with lots of detailed quantum mechanical stuff thrown in.
I think the state of knowledge about the nature of conciousness is such that it is very, very premature to make any serious attempt to explain how it comes about.
It would be much more useful to see more instances of lucid descriptions of individuals own mental processes.
Brainstorming is great, but its not very useful in terms of scientific (e.g., testable, verifiable) knowledge if the ideas don't lead to testable hypothesis.
He is also implying that it is human observation that causes some of the quantum weirdness that we observe (behaviour of wave-particle duality for example). This is not the case. The term 'observed' in this context is a bit more specific than in common speech. Given the speakers apparent familiarity with QM, I expect he knows this, but many readers will be left with the impression that what is important about QM 'observation' is the human element, when in fact it is not.
I agree with you that there is quite a difficulty in gathering any objective data about consciousness given that consciousness is inherently subjective. However, it is important to note that even such things as can be measured (temperature, mass, etc) are only considered objective because of their repeatability (the assumption is that high repeatability points toward some objective feature). However, I can take a temp reading of a glass of tap water time and again following the same procedures and there will be small differences in the actual reading. It is only through rounding and averaging that the appearance of regular behavior appears. Furthermore, things at the macro level are being measured at an extremely inaccurate tolerance compared to the quantum level. When we attempt to measure things at quantum scale, we find that things are much different and do not necessarily support this idea of objectivity. It is impossible to separate the consciousness of the observer from the system at this level. Sure, it can be ignored, but that doesn't mean that it isn't there. As for observation, even if it is some instrument "measuring", there is human consciousness involved both in the design of the system and in the expectation of result. You cannot i.e. it is impossible, to measure a system without being a part of the system. I don't know how anyone can deny this. I suspect it has something to do with being tied to the idea that there is something objective, some hard real truth out there to rest our faith on. I beg you to tell me, without relying on subjective sense data, what is a chair?
When we attempt to measure things at quantum scale, we find that things are much different and do not necessarily support this idea of objectivity. It is impossible to separate the consciousness of the observer from the system at this level.
If the former is intended as support for the latter, I think you'll need to provide much tighter logic before the argument carries any weight.
While it is true that quantum mechanics is a fundamentally different way of working, this does not make it any less objective than any other hard science. Harder, yes, but not less objective.
We can see that the system behaves differently when we measure it in different ways (e.g., measuring the way light propgates with the two-slit experiment). This doesn't mean that the measurements are effected by the experimenter. The results of the two-slit experiment are likely the same regardless of there is an concious entity around to observe them or not. The 'observer' can be a purely mechanical detector sitting by one of the slits. It isn't a concious entity, and yet its 'observation' causes the experiment to act in a different way.
I have yet to see any strong, peer-reviewed evidence that the presence of abscense of a human observation has any bearing on the results of an experiment.
Our inability to make repeatable measurements of a thing in no way suggests that our concious observations cause changes in the thing.
As for observation, even if it is some instrument "measuring", there is human consciousness involved both in the design of the system and in the expectation of result
Now you are proposing that there is a mechanism by which our intentionality leaves an impression on our tools of measurement? That when a lab technition sets up the two-slit experiment and then leaves it behind, that the behaviour of the experiment is still influenced by his conciousness?
I'll grant you that since we can never know truth, that idea could possibly be true, and that its even fun to think about and could make a nice element to a sci-fi story, but as far as a path to 'knowledge' its next to useless. Total blue-sky thinking.
tell me, without relying on subjective sense data, what is a chair?
I think you are trying too hard to draw absolute lines in a world of indeterminacies. All that which we percieve is by definition 'subjective sense data'. We abstract the data, classifying and analyzing, building a mental model of the world. From that model, which is based purely on subjective information, and built by our unique reasoning and inate biological skills, we build other models about the world. Layer upon layer of abstractions and models, some processed unconciously by the natural structures of our brains (i.e., our unconciously learned sense of basic Newtonian motion), some built up by deliberate concious actions (i.e., calculus, formal logic).
'Objective' data is that which we believe to be free of and uninfluanced by emotion or personal value judgements. 'Objective' data is not assumed to be 'true' or necessarily even well supported. It is the kind of data that we believe to be the same regardless of the opinions of the observer. E.G., the temperature of the water in the cup is between 70 and 75 degF. Obviously this is not a complete or rigirous statement of an objective fact, perhaps a relativistic observer would measure a different temperature. Through language, social context and convention we imply and infer a huge amount of information. And there are often problems in communcation when what was implied is not what is inferred.
Its fun to play 'what if', but if you want to make real progress, it is more productive to work from the solid foundation of knowledge built by those who have come before. There is no way to know if it, as a model, is identical with the way the universe 'really' works, but its as close as we've come in recorded history.
Post a Comment
<< Home