How do YOU define consciousness?

[Jeff Davis]

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. More articles that repeat the same information that you interpret to suit your view aren't going to help advance this discussion. How many more times do we need to go through that process, or are you just stringing me along for the sake of dragging out the discussion?

ROTFLMAO!!! You are denying Bell's Theorem??? Where is the face plam when a person needs it!! It's been called the most "profound" theorem in all of science. Ufology, whether you know it or not, you just went off the deep end.

 

[Randall]

ROTFLMAO!!! You are denying Bell's Theorem??? Where is the face plam when a person needs it!! It's been called the most "profound" theorem in all of science. Ufology, whether you know it or not, you just went off the deep end.

I see you want to keep playing. You have it completely backwards. Nowhere do I deny Bells Theorem. I simply maintain that it isn't accurate to use it to support the idea that consciousness has anything to with the results of experiments like the double slit.

 

[Muadib]

I think perhaps we should forget about trying to convince Jeff, he's entitled to his beliefs, as we are, and time will tell which interpretation is the correct one. I'd much rather actually try to explore this a little bit and find out just exactly what it is that he believes. It's one thing to say that consciousness precedes matter, but whose consciousness? For example, unless we're going to debate the merits of the big bang, you have to accept that until it happened, there was nothing around to be conscious. Unless you want to invoke the idea of God, some kind of super conscious (for lack of a better term) or that this world may be nothing more than a simulation (something I've always found interesting) and what we think of as the beginning wasn't really the beginning and we've been intentionally deceived by whoever or whatever created us. So which is it you believe? I'm just curious where you come down on this issue, Jeff, or do you take the position that we ultimately don't know, which is an honest position to take, but in that case which do you think is the most likely of either my scenarios or one of your own choosing that I've failed to list. Thanks in advance if you decide to answer.

 

[Randall]

I think perhaps we should forget about trying to convince Jeff, he's entitled to his beliefs, as we are, and time will tell which interpretation is the correct one. I'd much rather actually try to explore this a little bit and find out just exactly what it is that he believes.

Step right in my friend. I think that saying that consciousness precedes matter is a different concept than what we've been discussing, but trying to find out whether or not Jeff actually believes anything or not might reveal why he's being so persistent ( apologies for talking about you in the third person there Jeff ). Right now I'm tempted to think he's not actually serious, hasn't looked beyond the surface of the discussion, doesn't actually care what the subject matter is, and is simply arguing for the sake of argument rather than to advance the discussion forward. At least that's how it's coming across to me. I'm also curious about your twist on the issue ... this idea of consciousness preceding matter. What exactly do you mean by that? Some of your last post gave some clues, but I'd like to be more clear on it.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I see you want to keep playing. You have it completely backwards. Nowhere do I deny Bells Theorem. I simply maintain that it isn't accurate to use it to support the idea that consciousness has anything to with the results of experiments like the double slit.

omg, I give up. Bell's Theorem states what I have emboldened above to be the EXACT case. That's precisely why he postulated as much. It was an answer in response to the EPR experiment. Do you not get that?

Bell test experiments to date overwhelmingly show that the inequalities of Bell's theorem are violated. This provides empirical evidence against local realism and demonstrating that some of the "spooky action at a distance" suggested by the famous Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) thought experiment do in fact occur. They are also taken as positive evidence in favor of QM.

 

[Muadib]

Step right in my friend. I think that saying that consciousness precedes matter is a different concept than what we've been discussing, but trying to find out whether or not Jeff actually believes anything or not might reveal why he's being so persistent ( apologies for talking about you in the third person there Jeff ). Right now I'm tempted to think he's not actually serious, hasn't looked beyond the surface of the discussion, doesn't actually care what the subject matter is, and is simply arguing for the sake of argument rather than to advance the discussion forward. At least that's how it's coming across to me. I'm also curious about your twist on the issue ... this idea of consciousness preceding matter. What exactly do you mean by that? Some of your last post gave some clues, but I'd like to be more clear on it.

Well, that's kind of why I asked Jeff about it since I've seen him say it so many times and he's mentioned it in this thread. I think (and this is just my opinion) what he means by that is that the Universe itself had a conscious beginning, IE something conscious was here before the big bang and somehow kicked this whole thing off. Now, what he thinks that is isn't clear to me. Is it God, some nebulous new age concept of what amounts to a God, intelligent aliens, the "designer(s)" of the simulation if he subscribes to simulation theory, I'm just not sure. I think that has been his point this entire time and it's one of the reasons he can't accept that it's not the human brain causing the effects we observe in the double slit experiment but the instrumentation that we use to measure the results.

If what he's saying is that human beings create their own reality, or if that's part of his belief system, well, that presents a whole other load of problems in and of itself. Really, it's just for my own curiosity's sake, I don't intend to try and argue with him about it or further convince him of my POV.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I think perhaps we should forget about trying to convince Jeff, he's entitled to his beliefs, as we are, and time will tell which interpretation is the correct one. I'd much rather actually try to explore this a little bit and find out just exactly what it is that he believes. It's one thing to say that consciousness precedes matter, but whose consciousness? For example, unless we're going to debate the merits of the big bang, you have to accept that until it happened, there was nothing around to be conscious. Unless you want to invoke the idea of God, some kind of super conscious (for lack of a better term) or that this world may be nothing more than a simulation (something I've always found interesting) and what we think of as the beginning wasn't really the beginning and we've been intentionally deceived by whoever or whatever created us. So which is it you believe? I'm just curious where you come down on this issue, Jeff, or do you take the position that we ultimately don't know, which is an honest position to take, but in that case which do you think is the most likely of either my scenarios or one of your own choosing that I've failed to list. Thanks in advance if you decide to answer.

This is the best answer I can give you. It is NOT an appeal to authority. It *is* the manner and perspective that I do hold fast to hypothetically with regard to consciousness.

 

[Muadib]

This is the best answer I can give you. It is NOT an appeal to authority. It *is* the manner and perspective that I do hold fast to hypothetically with regard to consciousness.

Yes but why? If you believe that consciousness indeed precedes matter, then how do you reconcile that with known observations about the beginnings of the Universe? What was here to be conscious before the big bang, in other words. I don't really have time right now to watch an hour long video and I've seen Goswami in other videos, like the one mentioned earlier, and don't find his position or ideas convincing and I'm not alone in that interpretation. Plus, we have the whole woo factor with the Ramtha School of Enlightenment and their silly ideas and practices that he endorses. I'm just trying to nail down exactly what you believe but it seems that you aren't interested in providing that information, I wonder why that is? That's an honest question, btw, not a sarcastic response.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Whether you or anyone else finds his views convincing is not my concern. I just wanted to make clear my position on consciousness.

I do not understand your initial answering of a question with a question. Do you not know what you wish to ask? I answered your question.

 

[Muadib]

Whether you or anyone else finds his views convincing is not my concern. I just wanted to make clear my position on consciousness.

I do not understand your initial answering of a question with a question. Do you not know what you wish to ask? I answered your question.

You didn't answer my question. I get your position on consciousness, the question was 1. How do you reconcile the belief that consciousness precedes matter with what we know about the beginnings of the universe, what was here to be conscious before the big bang? Also, do you believe that human beings create their own reality via consciousness or is there something else out there that has done the creating for us? If you aren't interested in discussing your personal beliefs, that's fine, just say so.

 

[Jeff Davis]

You didn't answer my question. I get your position on consciousness, the question was 1. How do you reconcile the belief that consciousness precedes matter with what we know about the beginnings of the universe, what was here to be conscious before the big bang? Also, do you believe that human beings create their own reality via consciousness or is there something else out there that has done the creating for us? If you aren't interested in discussing your personal beliefs, that's fine, just say so.

1) First off, we don't KNOW anything with respect to the beginning of the universe. Like all matters theoretical, we find acceptance, or we don't. Therefore, we do not reconcile, we accept matters theoretical, based on evidence. The best evidence that I am aware of to fully support the mind/matter connection is the double slit experiment in association with John Bell's Theorem testing to back it up. No matter what is stated to the contrary, unless they have a link that clearly provides proof otherwise, I am aware of no testing or theories that conclusively disclaim either.

My goodness man, if ALL THIS, as in 100% of everything the three of us have discussed in this thread so far, is not the alignment of our "personal beliefs", then I don't know what is.

I do not believe that human beings create their own reality, nor do I believe that this is a simulation that we are interactively apart of wherein someone else is creating our reality for us.

What I believe is that consciousness determines or interprets all integral matter relationships experienced and reflected by the cognitive uptake of the human brain. It is because of consciousness that matter takes on definitive meaning, not vice versa. Do not confuse consciousness with the brain. They have NEVER been conclusively grouped as inseparable. In fact, most testing directly on the brain itself points emphatically in the opposite direction.

 

[Muadib]

1) First off, we don't KNOW anything with respect to the beginning of the universe. Like all matters theoretical, we find acceptance, or we don't. Therefore, we do not reconcile, we accept matters theoretical, based on evidence. The best evidence that I am aware of to fully support the mind/matter connection is the double slit experiment in association with John Bell's Theorem testing to back it up. No matter what is stated to the contrary, unless they have a link that clearly provides proof otherwise, I am aware of no testing or theories that conclusively disclaim either.

My goodness man, if ALL THIS, as in 100% of everything the three of us have discussed in this thread so far, is not the alignment of our "personal beliefs", then I don't know what is.

I do not believe that human beings create their own reality, nor do I believe that this is a simulation that we are interactively apart of wherein someone else is creating our reality for us.

What I believe is that consciousness determines or interprets all integral matter relationships experienced and reflected by the cognitive uptake of the human brain. It is because of consciousness that matter takes on definitive meaning, not vice versa. Do not confuse consciousness with the brain. They have NEVER been conclusively grouped as inseparable. In fact, most testing directly on the brain itself points emphatically in the opposite direction.

Thanks, I'm a little clearer as to your position, even if I don't agree with it.

 

[Randall]

omg, I give up. Bell's Theorem states what I have emboldened above to be the EXACT case. That's precisely why he postulated as much. It was an answer in response to the EPR experiment. Do you not get that?

No it isn't. Nowhere is the word "consciousness" used, and those who extrapolate that consciousness is what is meant or implied are stepping off the ledge into quantum mystical nonsense, and if that includes Bell himself elsewhere, then he's also done it.

 

[Randall]

This is the best answer I can give you. It is NOT an appeal to authority. It *is* the manner and perspective that I do hold fast to hypothetically with regard to consciousness.

The video "The Quantum Activist" is pure quantum mystical nonsense. It also goes on to invoke God and screws up that whole concept equally well. It's interesting as a story though, and as a model of how these beliefs are developed.

 

[Muadib]

The video "The Quantum Activist" is pure quantum mystical nonsense. It also goes on to invoke God and screws up that whole concept equally well. It's interesting as a story though, and as a model of how these beliefs are developed.

I think these definitions and explanations of the terms and processes used might help some people see why quantum mysticism is pure nonsense:

Observer Created Reality: Do we create reality through consciousness? Some quantum mysticism indicates that a conscious observer creates or manifests an action. To investigate we need to define observation and see the use of it in applied quantum physics. In science there are four possible definitions of observation physical interaction, human experimental design, human passive observation, and human consciousness. In quantum experiments the first two are of great importance the third is almost irrelevant and the fourth most believe plays absolutely no role in quantum events. To gain a better understanding we will look at the uncertainty principle or quantum measurement problem.

Uncertainty Principle: There is wave-particle duality in quantum physics, this has been shown through quantum predictions and quantized in mathematics, it may seem strange but it is the only abstraction the human mind has been able to create in order to deal with the most fundamental levels of physical reality. This duality leads to a limit on the precision we can measure a quantum entity. Example if you want to know the location of an electron you need to fire a photon at the electron in order to pinpoint its location (the photon is the measuring tool in this case) what happens is when the photon interacts with the electron it effects its momentum (an interaction that would have occurred with or without a conscious observer), so now we know where the electron is but cannot know what momentum it was traveling at because we effected it's momentum. This is where observer created reality comes into play, we have in effect created or predetermined what would happen by the tools we used and the measurement taken.

So Observer created reality is simply the tools and the experiment we use will manifest certain realities, it is not really our consciousness that created what happened.

Quantum Decoherence: Another thing that really applies to this is the gap between macro and micro. What happens on the quantum level does not and will not happen on the large macro level, why you might ask? Because of the decoherence that happens because of randomization of the quantum system, you get to many random quantum entities together and they start to work in a system that is governed by classical physics, it becomes to complex to illicit the quantum coherence and quantum states that the simple and small scale quantum systems do. In other words scientific analysis can show what happens when interactions between wave-particles combine to produce thermodynamic irreversibility (entropy wins!) and a decoherence of the mathematical wave-functions calculated in quantum mechanics.

I doubt this will sway anyone who's seriously invested in quantum mystical ideas but it's a good starting point for those who are skeptical of their claims.

 

[Randall]

I think these definitions and explanations of the terms and processes used might help some people see why quantum mysticism is pure nonsense ...

Seems like you've got a square head on your shoulders there young man .

 

[Muadib]

Seems like you've got a square head on your shoulders there young man .

Why thank you sir and right back at you.

On another, funnier note, Amit Goswami had his Wikipedia page deleted in 2012. If he was deemed insignificant enough not to warrant a Wikipedia page then I have a hard time believing that he's the pillar of the QM community that Jeff purports him to be. In fact, he has very few peer reviewed articles and has only written one textbook, which is hardly significant considering the crap that ends up in certain textbooks as demonstrated by the recent scandal in Texas, in which a textbook they were using made the claim that white people were superior to black people because the bible said it was so. In fact, the more I read about him, the more I think that he's just a guy who gave up the field of empirical science for the much greener ($$) pastures of New Age guru, ala Deepak Chopra. You can read the reasons for the deletion here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Goswami - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or just read this quote:

I'm just not convinced this article really demonstrates notability. He played a small role in a couple films, he wrote books outside his field for very minor publishers, and... er, that's about it. I'm just not buying it, and the lack of good WP:RS - this has major primary sourcing issues - is another mark against it. Perhaps something can be salvaged, but I'm not convinced the case has been made. ETA: Guillaume2303's point (below) that there are multiple people of this name, and this article appears to be on the much less notable one is rather significant.

Major primary sourcing issues? In an article about someone making pseudo-scientific claims? Say it ain't so!

 

[Jeff Davis]

Pathetic, and my patience does have it's exhaustion point. But, what the hell, I am a compassionate man. Dedicated to the cause of correcting each of your impoverished frontal lobes resulting in what are obvious mental profundities. I recognize a distraction when I am confronted with one. Let alone, two of them.

OK, so Ufology comes down on the side that Goswami is a mystic and makes derogatory remarks about the fact that the Quantum Activist, a documentary solely focused on the life, as in the complete relative biographical life span, of one of the greatest minds (and Globally accredited as such!) in theoretical QP, and then slams him, and denounces him, based on his personal beliefs. That means he's scared, and scared shitless!

Anytime Ufology does a cheap imitation of Phil Klass, he's SCARED! Be careful with your character there son.

Muadib, on the other hand, seems to be almost precursory to artificial intelligence's version of Ufology's Grandson, but I dunno, there might just be a tad more similarity even than that! (Goodness)


But here it is boys. Plain and SIMPLE.

You are lacking in ANY, as in in the least of ANYTHING, in terms of a real, or perhaps simpler put, effective, substantive rebuttal. You offer no refute because you have NONE. As in ZERO. Just more TIRED OPINION from the scoffers, who are ever predictable in their fear's best protest. <yawn>

So, Ufology contends that Bell's Theorem doesn't reinforce the notion of Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" ie. "the mind(ie. consciousness)/matter" connection eh?

I know beyond question that is incorrect so I have no other choice but to accept the fact that Ufology has a problem reconciling reality. That is, unless, he can offer up contradictory evidence that would dismiss the same aforementioned evidence. Evidence that has already been demonstrated/accepted within legitimate circles consisting of the TQP scientific community.

I am certain you will counter here with your typical "they weren't referring to consciousness" bs. But I would ask you to use a little more common sense instead, please.

3 Questions Ufology:
1) What is the title of this thread?
2) What is YOUR version, if not the attribute of sentient awareness, which does in fact equal...consciousness.
3) Have you been taking your supplements lately?

Time to wake up and smell the reality men, cause you're living in a scientifically speculative time that's been. Damn.

 

[Randall]

Pathetic, and my patience does have it's exhaustion point ...

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff ... you are a dedicated believer, I'll give you that. So if you must keep pursuing that path, then by all means I wish you well on your journey ( not that it will be getting you anywhere ... but I wish you well anyway ). The answer to your question is here: How do YOU define consciousness? | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Jeff Davis]

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff ... you are a dedicated believer, I've give you that. So if you must keep pursuing that path, then by all means I wish you well on your journey ( not that it will be getting you anywhere ... but I wish you well anyway ). The answer to your question is here: How do YOU define consciousness? | The Paracast Community Forums

Please explain your superior views and hypothesis on consciousness Ufology, so that all can benefit from such an enlightening experience. If you truly feel that consciousness is responsible for our sentient experiences as human beings as your posted views imply, and we both KNOW that Bell's theorem does in FACT reinforce the REALITY of the mind/matter connection, then I am certain you must have some type of reasonable counter. So far I haven't seen any, but I am just sure you must have one. Don't you?