How do YOU define consciousness?

[Jeff Davis]

What you are talking about with respect to observation doesn't actually have anything to do with consciousness. It's the introduction of a measuring system that affects the experiment, which is to be expected, especially when dealing with individual quanta ( duh ).

Not sure what you are referring to. This is where I am coming from: http://doubleslitexperiment.com/

 

[Randall]

Not sure what you are referring to. This is where I am coming from: http://doubleslitexperiment.com/

The double slit experiment is the typically used to promote quantum mysticism by misrepresenting, or simply failing to understand or properly research the Observer Effect and the Uncertainty Principle. These have nothing to do with consciousness and everything to do with the introduction of equipment to take the measurements. If it were only a matter of consciousness recognizing that the photons were passing through the slits, then simply looking at the target should be sufficient to change the results. But that doesn't change anything. Where the change comes in is where the detectors are inserted into the experiment. If you read the article you posted again, you'll see that it is the introduction of the detectors that changes the results, and that consciousness actually has nothing to do with it. A robotic system could be implemented that randomly inserted the detectors completely separated from any conscious decision making, and you'd still get the same results.

When we think about this it only makes sense because for any detector to work, it has to interact either directly or indirectly with the quanta ( photon, electron, etc. ) being measured, thereby affecting it somehow. For example, direct interception by placing a detector at either slit would naturally collapse the interference pattern because only the quanta not being intercepted for measurement purposes would be getting through. Indirect measurement also has some effect. For example it may be the case that the quanta coming off a mirror isn't the same one that hit the surface, but a re-emission of a new one from the electrons in the silver layer, or even if that's not the case bouncing any particle at the speed of light of a hard surface is going to affect its energy and spin and who knows what else, or it may be that EM or magnetic interference overwhelms such small particles in a way that disrupts their path. Whatever the case, we know that it has nothing to do with consciously observing it or not. That whole mythos came out of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. It was intended to be used in an allegorical manner to illustrate concepts like quantum entanglement, not to be taken literally as someone actually observing what is taking place and inferring that consciousness plays some role.

 

[Muadib]

. That whole mythos came out of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. It was intended to be used in an allegorical manner to illustrate concepts like quantum entanglement, not to be taken literally as someone actually observing what is taking place and inferring that consciousness plays some role.

Here's a couple of quick videos that explain part of what Ufology is talking about. The show is called "I don't think that means what you think it means" and it deals with scientific phenomena that have moved from science and into the realm of pop culture, consequently becoming distorted by misunderstanding and then being used to support all kinds of mystic nonsense.

 

[Jeff Davis]

The double slit experiment is the typically used to promote quantum mysticism by misrepresenting, or simply failing to understand or properly research the Observer Effect and the Uncertainty Principle. These have nothing to do with consciousness and everything to do with the introduction of equipment to take the measurements. If it were only a matter of consciousness recognizing that the photons were passing through the slits, then simply looking at the target should be sufficient to change the results. But that doesn't change anything. Where the change comes in is where the detectors are inserted into the experiment. If you read the article you posted again, you'll see that it is the introduction of the detectors that changes the results, and that consciousness actually has nothing to do with it. A robotic system could be implemented that randomly inserted the detectors completely separated from any conscious decision making, and you'd still get the same results.

When we think about this it only makes sense because for any detector to work, it has to interact either directly or indirectly with the quanta ( photon, electron, etc. ) being measured, thereby affecting it somehow. For example, direct interception by placing a detector at either slit would naturally collapse the interference pattern because only the quanta not being intercepted for measurement purposes would be getting through. Indirect measurement also has some effect. For example it may be the case that the quanta coming off a mirror isn't the same one that hit the surface, but a re-emission of a new one from the electrons in the silver layer, or even if that's not the case bouncing any particle at the speed of light of a hard surface is going to affect its energy and spin and who knows what else, or it may be that EM or magnetic interference overwhelms such small particles in a way that disrupts their path. Whatever the case, we know that it has nothing to do with consciously observing it or not. That whole mythos came out of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. It was intended to be used in an allegorical manner to illustrate concepts like quantum entanglement, not to be taken literally as someone actually observing what is taking place and inferring that consciousness plays some role.

Please provide me evidence that clearly indicates that consciousness has nothing to do with observation. I think that's horse poop plain and simple.


Incorrect. The behavior of electrons does in fact alter according to our observation of them. It's predictable, routine, and dependably repeatable. This has been giving scientists fits, and yes I know, they are doing their best to denounce what has been replicated in a controlled situation. In demonstration, the building blocks of matter do in fact react specifically to human beings. This has nothing to do with instrumentation. Had it, the double slit would have been repealed many a moon ago. Since it was first performed in the 1800s, the evidence as a result of the experiment has only gotten stronger. You can call it "mysticism" all you like, doesn't bother me a bit because frankly, every time something new comes along in science it the same old BS, it's "mysticism" they cry at the top of their lungs.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Schopenhauer

 

[SRL+]

Anthropic principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Randall]

Please provide me evidence that clearly indicates that consciousness has nothing to do with observation. I think that's horse poop plain and simple.

Consciousness may or may not involve observation, but that's not what's at issue when we're talking about the supposed effect of consciousness on wave/particle duality.

Incorrect. The behavior of electrons does in fact alter according to our observation of them. It's predictable, routine, and dependably repeatable. This has been giving scientists fits, and yes I know, they are doing their best to denounce what has been replicated in a controlled situation. In demonstration, the building blocks of matter do in fact react specifically to human beings. This has nothing to do with instrumentation ...

In some of these experiments the particles that are fired through the apparatus aren't visible to human vision. So how do you propose that they're being detected if not with instrumentation? Let me give you a clue. They don't shrink the scientists down to the quantum level and stick them in the apparatus so they can sit in a quantum sized chair sipping quantum-sodas while watching the particles speed by like cars at the race track. If one studies the experiments enough it becomes apparent that quantum mysticism has hijacked these experiments to serve its own agenda by exploiting the ignorance of the masses with respect to the science.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Consciousness may or may not involve observation, but that's not what's at issue when we're talking about the supposed effect of consciousness on wave/particle duality.

In some of these experiments the particles that are fired through the apparatus aren't visible to human vision. So how do you propose that they're being detected if not with instrumentation? Let me give you a clue. They don't shrink the scientists down to the quantum level and stick them in the apparatus so they can sit in a quantum sized chair sipping quantum-sodas while watching the particles speed by like cars at the race track. If one studies the experiments enough it becomes apparent that quantum mysticism has hijacked these experiments to serve its own agenda by exploiting the ignorance of the masses with respect to the science.

Obviously "vision" has nothing to do with the effect. It's happening due to our consciousness Ufology. That's the WHOLE point. Incidentally, all, not some, particles fired through the apparatus are not visible to human vision. That's because they are too small to be detected, or bear out characteristics that make them invisible to human vision. This does not mean the instruments used to detect them are creating any effect. The effect changes. Whether we observe it, or not. That's the point. There is no getting around the fact that matter reacts predictably to human observation. Reality reacts to us, not the other way around. Consciousness proceeds matter.

 

[Muadib]

Obviously "vision" has nothing to do with the effect. It's happening due to our consciousness Ufology. That's the WHOLE point. Incidentally, all, not some, particles fired through the apparatus are not visible to human vision. That's because they are too small to be detected, or bear out characteristics that make them invisible to human vision. This does not mean the instruments used to detect them are creating any effect. The effect changes. Whether we observe it, or not. That's the point. There is no getting around the fact that matter reacts predictably to human observation. Reality reacts to us, not the other way around. Consciousness proceeds matter.

The only people who make the claim that consciousness somehow precedes matter are either mystics or the religious. It certainly isn't the view of mainstream science. Which is more likely, that you've misunderstood the results of these experiments or that there's some wild, unprecedented conspiracy among thousands of scientists to hide the truth? I think reasonable people can figure out the answer to that question fairly easily.

 

[Muadib]

I'm not big on double posting but just to show that I'm not completely close minded on the subject:

It's not at all reasonable to say that the double slit experiment conclusively proves that the human mind is the cause of the changes we observe in how matter behaves. In order to do that, you would somehow have to eliminate any measuring equipment from the experiment in order to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is, in fact, our consciousness that is causing the effect. This is not currently possible, so you can say that it's your opinion or belief that our consciousness is causing these effects, but you can't claim it to be proven. I think it would be pretty awesome (in a Star Wars, "use the force, Luke" kind of way...) if it was proven, but it just isn't the case at this time. The effects of instrumentation on experimental results is well tested and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the human mind? Not so much...

On top of that, quantum mechanics is not something that can be applied across the board to anything and everything, it deals only with the very small and it completely breaks down when we try and use it to predict the behavior of large objects. A human being is not a quantum object and is therefore subject only to the boring, well tested, traditional laws of physics that have been around for hundreds of years.

 

[Jeff Davis]

a) The only people who make the claim that consciousness somehow precedes matter are either mystics or the religious. It certainly isn't the view of mainstream science. b) Which is more likely, that you've misunderstood the results of these experiments or that there's some wild, unprecedented conspiracy among thousands of scientists to hide the truth? I think reasonable people can figure out the answer to that question fairly easily.

a) Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D. : Theoretical Quantum Physicist would strongly disagree with you, so do I. I do hate to use cliche and say that, "this guy, or that gal, well, they wrote the book on the science of theoretical QP", but when you're accurate in stating that he did in fact author one of, if not THEE, college/university text book on the subject of QM, I guess it's OK. So, dig in.

b) The results of the experiments are identical in each and every case. There is not much to misunderstand. Even the least of us can. Read it, please: Double Slit Experiment - Quantum Physics

The last paragraph deals in matters outside the scope of my concern. They are philosophical perspectives, some comical, and certainly cannot be treated as truths apart from the accompaniment of some basic substantiation. Statements like predictions of large object behavior in relation to QP is off the charts with respect to reality. Hello! That is unless you are referring to the composition of the larger objects in which case you would be incorrect. "A human being is not a quantum object" Is simply beyond what I am prepared to address.

 

[Muadib]

a) Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D. : Theoretical Quantum Physicist would strongly disagree with you, so do I. I do hate to use cliche and say that, "this guy, or that gal, well, they wrote the book on the science of theoretical QP", but when you're accurate in stating that he did in fact author one of, if not THEE, college/university text book on the subject of QM, I guess it's OK. So, dig in.

b) The results of the experiments are identical in each and every case. There is not much to misunderstand. Even the least of us can. Read it, please: Double Slit Experiment - Quantum Physics

The last paragraph deals in matters outside the scope of my concern. They are philosophical perspectives, some comical, and certainly cannot be treated as truths apart from the accompaniment of some basic substantiation. Statements like predictions of large object behavior in relation to QP is off the charts with respect to reality. Hello! That is unless you are referring to the composition of the larger objects in which case you would be incorrect. "A human being is not a quantum object" Is simply beyond what I am prepared to address.

I'm not going to play the my scientists are better than your scientists game because it isn't going to get us anywhere, we can simply agree to disagree, especially since we really can't say with 100% certainty which one of us is right. I feel pretty confident that it's much more probable that these effects are being caused by instrumentation rather than some kind of undocumented, unproven psi power that has repeatedly failed to be confirmed by experimentation. I will point out that several very prominent scientists have addressed the double slit experiment and they draw conclusions that are much different than what you're saying. Steven Hawking devotes almost an entire chapter to it in his latest book The Grand Design. I suggest you give it a read at some point.

I know some people (especially here) don't like CSICOP but here's a great article that does a good job debunking quantum mysticism and rightly points out that:

Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts.

However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations.

The apparent holistic, nonlocal behavior of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle’s appearing to be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light.

No superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with the limit set by the theory of relativity. Furthermore, interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales-especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function. Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale.

You can read the entire article here: Quantum Quackery - CSI

 

[Jeff Davis]

Yes I agree, we can respectfully agree to disagree. I will stick with the person that I personally find the most directly associated due credibility, within the science, apart from perspective based opinion, like:

However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations.

, Goswami as I already pointed out, is a central, even key figure, of the scientific discipline that is applied theoretical QP. It speaks volumes that his communicated views as demonstrated within the many educational materials he is responsible for globally, successfully measure and define his accuracy in a legitimately approved, therefore unbiased, tome of applied subject knowledge for purposes of learning and further prospering the science itself.

Again, why should this be different than any other time in history? Opposition is only natural, the theories at this point have already been proved, empirically tested all around. There will always be naysayers. Acceptance at the ground level within the scientific community on the other hand, now that'll take some work. Typical dogmatic, self important boneheads, sparring and bickering for a new footing. Progress, it's a bitch.

 

[Muadib]

Yes I agree, we can respectfully agree to disagree. I will stick with the person that I personally find the most directly associated due credibility, within the science, apart from perspective based opinion, like: , Goswami as I already pointed out, is a central, even key figure, of the scientific discipline that is applied theoretical QP. It speaks volumes that his communicated views as demonstrated within the many educational materials he is responsible for globally, successfully measure and define his accuracy in a legitimately approved, therefore unbiased, tome of applied subject knowledge for purposes of learning and further prospering the science itself.

Again, why should this be different than any other time in history? Opposition is only natural, the theories at this point have already been proved, empirically tested all around. There will always be naysayers. Acceptance at the ground level within the scientific community on the other hand, now that'll take some work. Typical dogmatic, self important boneheads, sparring and bickering for a new footing. Progress, it's a bitch.

I'm sorry but if you find the guy who lectures at the "Ramtha School for Enlightenment" in his free time more credible than Stephen Hawking, Kaku or Stenger than I think you have bigger problems than your obvious misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. To say his theories have been proven and empirically tested is pure and utter nonsense, please provide the specific experiments that were conducted that prove that "Consciousness precedes matter" and please don't tell me the double slit experiment or to "google it" Who is Ramtha btw? Oh he's a 35,000 year old channeled warrior spirit from Atlantis (LMFAO) that performs miracles. Sorry, I just don't buy the theory that this is all being covered up by "big bad empirical science" Every single scientist who I've ever heard profess the belief in what you're saying is inevitably involved in some kind of woo. Anyway, it's not that important but you're going to be really disappointed in the future when none of this crap ever catches on and is inevitably forgotten.

For more on Ramtha you can read this article:

What the #$*! is Ramtha

Or just read this quote from the article which provides yet another source who completely and utterly disagrees with your interpretation, this time it's a philosopher, I guess they're in on the conspiracy with those damn scientists!


The most intriguing concept in What the Bleep--and in Ramtha's teachings--is the idea that quantum mechanics is the ultimate proof that the universe is a sort of metaphysical putty we shape with our minds. But one of the experts quoted in the film says this claim is nonsense.

Philosopher David Albert, who runs the Philosophical Foun-dations of Physics program at Columbia University, says the filmmakers totally misrepresented him. "They must have filmed me for four hours," he told WW. "It became clear to me they believe that...by positive thinking we can alter the structure of the world around us. I spent a long time explaining why that isn't true, going into great detail. But in the movie, my views are turned around 180 degrees."

"The film is pushing a claim that quantum mechanics shows that consciousness is the basis of external reality," he continues. "And that's not an accurate representation."

 

[Randall]

Obviously "vision" has nothing to do with the effect. It's happening due to our consciousness Ufology. That's the WHOLE point.

Until you stop repeating that it is consciousness that is the cause of the effects produced by such experiments as the double slit, and start dealing with the facts behind the science, this discussion cannot advance, and you will go on believing in quantum mystical nonsense. Choose your preference. I'm trying to help you.

 

[Muadib]

Until you stop repeating that it is consciousness that is the cause of the effects produced by such experiments as the double slit, and start dealing with the facts behind the science, this discussion cannot advance, and you will go on believing in quantum mystical nonsense. Choose your preference. I'm trying to help you.

Amen. I'd like to see some links to these supposedly empirically verified experiments that prove that consciousness precedes matter, instead of appeals to the authority of a guy who supports a school based on the teachings of a channeled 35,000 year old warrior from Atlantis.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Until you stop repeating that it is consciousness that is the cause of the effects produced by such experiments as the double slit, and start dealing with the facts behind the science, this discussion cannot advance, and you will go on believing in quantum mystical nonsense. Choose your preference. I'm trying to help you.

Bullshit. Read: Double Slit Experiment - Quantum Physics

 

[Jeff Davis]

Amen. I'd like to see some links to these supposedly empirically verified experiments that prove that consciousness precedes matter, instead of appeals to the authority of a guy who supports a school based on the teachings of a channeled 35,000 year old warrior from Atlantis.

And I would like to see some substantiation from you via your mysticism comments and accusations. So far all you and Ufology have done is offer up differing opinion. That and .25 will get you a cup of coffee, 40 years ago.

 

[Randall]

Bullshit. Read: Double Slit Experiment - Quantum Physics

The link you gave above uses the same misleading terms as other articles that lead people to the same faulty conclusion you seem to believe is accurate. Specifically it uses the word "observation" when it should use the word "detection". Using the word "observation" is where people walk off the ledge into quantum mysticism by making the false presumption that consciousness is involved. It makes no difference. Like I said before, you could have a totally non-conscious robot insert the detectors and you'd get the same results. Plus it's just plain logical. In some experiments the target screen is humanly observable, yet consciously observing the target screen as the pattern forms makes no difference.

One might be tempted to say that you would have to observe the particles before they reach the target, in which case you could simply insert another target between the slit card and the original target at some random moment of your conscious choosing, and if the theory that "consciousness" changes the result is true, then no interference pattern should emerge, but guess what. That won't make any difference either. Why? Because the whole idea that consciousness itself changes the experiment is the creation of quantum mystics and has been parroted in so many places to sensationalize pop-science media, that people have simply taken it for granted. You need to study these experiments at a more technical level and do some deeper reflection on it rather than posting the same types of write-ups over and over again.

 

[Jeff Davis]

The link you gave above uses the same misleading terms as other articles that lead people to the same faulty conclusion you seem to believe is accurate. Specifically it uses the word "observation" when it should use the word "detection". Using the word "observation" is where people walk off the ledge into quantum mysticism by making the false presumption that consciousness is involved. It makes no difference. Like I said before, you could have a totally non-conscious robot insert the detectors and you'd get the same results. Plus it's just plain logical. In some experiments the target screen is humanly observable, yet consciously observing the target screen as the pattern forms makes no difference.

One might be tempted to say that you would have to observe the particles before they reach the target, in which case you could simply insert another target between the slit card and the original target at some random moment of your conscious choosing, and if the theory that "consciousness" changes the result is true, then no interference pattern should emerge, but guess what. That won't make any difference either. Why? Because the whole idea that consciousness itself changes the experiment is the creation of quantum mystics and has been parroted in so many places to sensationalize pop-science media, that people have simply taken it for granted. You need to study these experiments at a more technical level and do some deeper reflection on it rather than posting the same types of write-ups over and over again.

Consciousness, not observation, IMO, is what is responsible for the collapse of the quantum wave as evidenced by Bell's theorem - Quantiki | Quantum information wiki and portal Science is very divided over this right now, but NO ONE can argue with the paper work that has passed empirical review. All anyone can do right now is ACCEPT that within the field of quantum sciences, the mind/matter connection is reinforced by Bell's efforts. Irrevocably so at the present. There is no mysticism involved Sir, only science.

 

[Randall]

Consciousness, not observation, IMO, is what is responsible for the collapse of the quantum wave as evidenced by Bell's theorem - Quantiki | Quantum information wiki and portal Science is very divided over this right now, but NO ONE can argue with the paper work that has passed empirical review. All anyone can do right now is ACCEPT that within the field of quantum sciences, the mind/matter connection is reinforced by Bell's efforts. Irrevocably so at the present. There is no mysticism involved Sir, only science.

Notice again how the article uses the word "observation" when in reality it is the act of detecting that initiates the change. We've already been through this when we touched on how the particles in some of these experiments aren't even consciously observable, and therefore neither observation nor consciousness can possibly have any bearing on the outcome. If you want me to keep playing this little game, you'll have to actually advance the discussion rather than merely dragging it out with pointless repetition.