Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > Science & Spirituality

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 29-03-2012, 01:55 AM
Rin
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by seekerscientist
The three major metaphysical aspects of quantum mechanics are:

1. Particle-wave duality.
2. The role of the act of observation in creating reality.
3. Nonlocality (spooky action at a distance).

Particle-wave duality and nonlocality, as metaphysical as they may seem, are aspects that have been observed experimentally and so would seem to be definitely a part of our physical reality.

But what about the quantum mechanical formalism that the act of observation actually creates reality? The central problem, of course, is who is the observer?

What do you think?
There are experiments which are set up in a way where an event takes place before the outcome is observed.

These experiments show that an observation also creates an appropriate history, or to put it differently, what is observed changes what happened before the observation is made.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 29-03-2012, 11:03 AM
UndercoverElephant
Posts: n/a
 
For anyone interested in this topic who hasn't come across the following book, you might find it worth picking up:

http://www.amazon.com/Mindful-Univer.../dp/3642180752

I think Stapp's theory is the closest we've got to an explanation which makes sense. To me, at least.

The fascinating thing about Stapp's theory (or one of them) is that he actually provides a mechanism whereby even though consciousness is not physical, the capacity for consciousness could have been acquired by animals via natural selection. There's a major problem for Darwinism here that doesn't exist for any other feature of living systems. The problem is this: the materialists don't want to accept that consciousness is causal over matter, because that looks to them like dualism and "dualism is bad". BUT...if consciousness is NOT causal over matter then it can't have been selected by natural selection, because it can't have made any difference to the actual behaviour of the first conscious animals. For the materialists, this is "rock and hard place" time, and the only way out is to deny there is any such thing as consciousness, or to claim it evolved "by accident" (i.e. it is a totally random feature of animals and serves no evolutionary purpose.)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 29-03-2012, 01:39 PM
hse1pbe
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant
There's a major problem for Darwinism here that doesn't exist for any other feature of living systems. The problem is this: the materialists don't want to accept that consciousness is causal over matter, because that looks to them like dualism and "dualism is bad". BUT...if consciousness is NOT causal over matter then it can't have been selected by natural selection, because it can't have made any difference to the actual behaviour of the first conscious animals.

Can you be a little more specific about what you mean when you say "causal"? "Causal consciousness" is only like dualism if you assume that consciousness is not physical.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 29-03-2012, 04:06 PM
UndercoverElephant
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hse1pbe
Can you be a little more specific about what you mean when you say "causal"? "Causal consciousness" is only like dualism if you assume that consciousness is not physical.

I don't need to "assume" that consciousness is non-physical. I could provide a long argument to back up exactly what that claim means if you like. But I do indeed end up concluding that consciousness either doesn't exist, or it is non-physical.

What do I mean when I say "causal"?

I was talking about evolution. Even if consciousness is non-physical, there is clearly something special about animal's brains which is closely associated with consciousness. Unless you are a pansychist there has to be some specific property of brains which allows their owners to be conscious when, say, plants and rocks are not. From a genetic/evolutionary perspective, how could this work?

It is easy enough to imagine a random genetic mutation happening which produced the first example of consciousness in an animal by producing whatever neural structure makes our brains capable of consciousness. But for natural selection to be able to select for this trait, it would have to be the case that this connection to consciousness actually leads to some sort of behavioural difference which meant that first conscious animal survived, prospered and passed on the new gene to its offspring. Consciousness would actually have to improve that animal's survival prospects. And that can only be the case if consciousness is causal over the physical brain. If this were not the case then consciousness could not make any difference to the behaviour of the animal and therefore it could not improve its survival chances. It follows that non-physical consciousness which is not causal over matter could not have evolved via natural selection. The only "natural" explanation would be "genetic drift" - the mutation spread by sheer fluke.

My own best guess is that consciousness is non-physical, it is causally efficacious over matter, and that the capacity for animals to be conscious did indeed arrive by chance mutation and natural selection. I suspect that consciousness was co-opted by natural selection as a means of improving the decision-making capabilities of primitive neural systems. If this is true, then it may also be the case that in humans, with our advanced cognitive abilities, consciousness has something to do with the capacity for free will (which is also associated with decision-making, or at least the decision whether or not to do something you are considering doing.)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 29-03-2012, 04:36 PM
hse1pbe
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant
It is easy enough to imagine a random genetic mutation happening which produced the first example of consciousness in an animal by producing whatever neural structure makes our brains capable of consciousness. But for natural selection to be able to select for this trait, it would have to be the case that this connection to consciousness actually leads to some sort of behavioural difference which meant that first conscious animal survived, prospered and passed on the new gene to its offspring. Consciousness would actually have to improve that animal's survival prospects. And that can only be the case if consciousness is causal over the physical brain. If this were not the case then consciousness could not make any difference to the behaviour of the animal and therefore it could not improve its survival chances.
Sure, I agree with this. I think it's pretty clear that consciousness provides an evolutionary advantage. And as you said, this requires that consciousness is able to "cause" things in the physical organism. However, I don't see how this, by itself, is a problem for "materialists." It only becomes a problem if you hold the view that consciousness is non-physical. If that's what you think, that's fine. (We could discuss consciousness more generally in another thread if you'd like, I don't want to hijack this one ). But most materialists do not consider consciousness to be a non-physical phenomena, so there is no problem here at all. Some materialists may say that the physical brain is consciousness, and so there is no issue with the physical brain having a physical effect on the physical body.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 29-03-2012, 05:38 PM
xebiche
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by seekerscientist
The three major metaphysical aspects of quantum mechanics are:

1. Particle-wave duality.
2. The role of the act of observation in creating reality.
3. Nonlocality (spooky action at a distance).

Particle-wave duality and nonlocality, as metaphysical as they may seem, are aspects that have been observed experimentally and so would seem to be definitely a part of our physical reality.

But what about the quantum mechanical formalism that the act of observation actually creates reality? The central problem, of course, is who is the observer?

What do you think?





I think we are well on our way to understanding the quantum field.

Thousands of us now merge with her daily.

As those numbers grow, the conscious values of the universe begin to reveal themselves within us.

There is a psychology to the quantum field,
it is LOVE and UNITY.

If you want to get a headstart on quantum mechanics..,
practice love now.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 29-03-2012, 06:13 PM
Kepler
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by UndercoverElephant
For anyone interested in this topic who hasn't come across the following book, you might find it worth picking up:

...

I think Stapp's theory is the closest we've got to an explanation which makes sense. To me, at least.

The fascinating thing about Stapp's theory (or one of them) is that he actually provides a mechanism whereby even though consciousness is not physical, the capacity for consciousness could have been acquired by animals via natural selection.

Interesting, thanks for the link! Where does quantum mechanics fit into this "evolution of consciousness" picture?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 31-03-2012, 08:27 AM
gypsy
Posts: n/a
 
I feel consciousness has its own physical aspect and that consciousness is an evolution of intention, which Darwinism doesn't account for.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 31-03-2012, 11:17 AM
UndercoverElephant
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kepler
Interesting, thanks for the link! Where does quantum mechanics fit into this "evolution of consciousness" picture?

I can have a stab at explaining the relevance of Stapp's theory to evolution, although there is a lot crammed into his rather small book.

Stapp doesn't believe in p-zombies. He thinks a non-conscious animal could not function as an animal at all, let alone behave identically to a conscious animal. His book is an attempt to defend what he considers to be the original "standard" interpretation of QM.

You need to understand the Quantum Zeno Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

Quote:
Significance to cognitive science

The quantum Zeno effect (with its own controversies related to the problem of measurement) is becoming a central concept in the exploration of controversial theories of quantum mind consciousness within the discipline of cognitive science. In his book Mindful Universe (2007), Henry Stapp claims that the mind holds the brain in a superposition of states using the quantum Zeno effect. He advances that this phenomenon is the principal method by which the conscious can effect change, a possible solution to the mind-body dichotomy. Stapp and co-workers do not claim finality of their theory, but only:[36]

The new framework, unlike its classic-physics-based predecessor, is erected directly upon, and is compatible with, the prevailing principles of physics.

Needless to say, such conjectures have their opponents, serving perhaps to create more furor, rather than less, for example, see Bourget.[37] A summary of the situation is provided by Davies:[38]

There have been many claims that quantum mechanics plays a key role in the origin and/or operation of biological organisms, beyond merely providing the basis for the shapes and sizes of biological molecules and their chemical affinities.…The case for quantum biology remains one of “not proven.” There are many suggestive experiments and lines of argument indicating that some biological functions operate close to, or within, the quantum regime, but as yet no clear-cut example has been presented of non-trivial quantum effects at work in a key biological process.

While this last objection may no longer be valid,[39] the significance of the Zeno effect in determining the rate of quantum decoherence in biological systems remains unknown.

According to Stapp's theory, primitive neural systems took advantage of the QZE in order to improve the speed or accuracy of their decision-making systems.

A taste of the theory:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stapp
I call by the name "template for action" a macroscopic brain state that will, if held in place for an extended period, tend to produce some particular action. Trial and error learning, extended over the evolutionary development of the species and over the life of the individual agent, should have the effect of bringing into the agent'#s repertoire of intentional process 1 actions the "Yes-No" partitions such that the "Yes" response will, if held in place for an extended period, tend to generate an associated recognisable feedback corresponding to the successful achievement of the intent. Successful living demands the generation through effort-based learning of templates for action.

In other words, there is a learning process which involves the whole system of observer and brain state "learning" how to "choose" between different macroscopic brains states. This is the equivalent of the "will" learning how to use the brain as a sort of "quantum computer."

Another way to explain it: the brain is sometimes in an indeterminate quantum state (like the dead-AND-alive cat, but this is a brain-state-yes-action-AND-brain-state-no-action state). It is the observer which then determines (once the system has learned how to allow this to happen) whether the action takes place or does not.

That's a very vague and brief summary I know. In terms of evolution it just means that some very primitive animal ended up with a neural system which allowed the quantum zeno effect to take place in its brain, and it was at this point that

(a) it stopped being a zombie and started being conscious
(b) it was capable of making decisions in a new and more efficient way, by taking advantage of the laws of quantum mechanics, just as quantum computers are theoretically more efficient than normal computers.

If this theory is correct then the Catholic church has to back down on the last bit of evolution it is still claiming God was responsible for. The current official Catholic position is that evolution was naturalistic apart from God intervening to give humans souls. This theory suggests that all animals have "souls", and the only thing that makes humans special is that we've also got very large brains (also provided by evolution). Having a "soul" means all animals are conscious, but without a large brain and the capacity for language, they can't have knowledge of good and evil. Animals have "will" but are only capable of using it to do what nature programmed them to do. Because humans also have large brains we are presented not only with survival choices but ethical/spiritual choices too.

I hope that is a good enough explanation to at least allow the discussion to go forward. It is not easy to summarise Stapp's theory in one post.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 31-03-2012, 01:54 PM
Kepler
Posts: n/a
 
Great, thanks for the summary UndercoverElephant!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums