Do Concepts Exist Apart from Physical Processes in the Brain?

[TRussert]

Could you expand on this? Thanks

Hello Legion, In QM, and according to the Copenhagen Interpretation , matter and energy exist in the instant of observation. Without observation, there is no way to prove either exists outside of this instant of observation. Even our scientific instruments, which record data without our observation, only yield that data in the instant of observation. There is no way to prove that data actually existed until it was observed. The conclusion therefore is that physical reality and all sentient experience does not exist until the instant of observation. I am using the term instant to get away from any assumptions about time. That's where entanglement comes in. It has been repeatedly demonstrated, with more and more sophisticated means of testing, that in the Quantum level of reality, there are no actual separations of distance and time, and in fact time itself does not exist here. This is because whatever occurs at the Quantum level, occurs instantaneously. This means that what happens, happens with no perceivable delay or process; it is timeless. You could take two electrons and separate them by the width of the Universe, yet what you do to one is instantaneously experienced by the other.
If the Quantum realm is the foundation of our physical realm, there are some incredible illusions taking place for physical reality to appear physical in the first place. For example, when we make an observation through one or more of our physical senses, there is a process involved, and for the stimuli to get recognized in our brains, time is involved for the message to go from our senses through our nervous system to the recognition centers corresponding to that stimuli. Additional time is involved converting that message into information we recognize and are able to give definition to. It involves a lot of time, even if only fractions of a second. Yet, matter and energy, or experience, only exits in the instant of observation. The time it takes us to process and recognize an experience however is an eternity to the instantaneous nature of the foundation of our existence, the Quantum Reality.
I am suggesting therefore that the reality we think we know so well to which our sole connection resides in five physical senses, may in fact be an illusion.
Consider the very basis of our sentient ability. While it often is about physical sensory input, it involves even more non sensory activity. There is a constant flow of thoughts we all experience, awake and asleep, that have no connection to sensory input. Much of these thoughts are not unlike the probabilities Quantum Mechanics implies exist from which our observations "condense" a specific experience in that instant of observation. This experience is no less real than our physically focused experience, and may in fact be more real because it is free of physical limitations and "rules". Certain kinds of dreams demonstrate this. Who has never had a dream in which they were not sure of dreaming or actually having a physical experience, especially during that transition from being asleep to being awake? There are times we all can't tell what is actually happening from what is just being imagined. As soon as we are fully focused on our five senses, it becomes obvious such experience was imagined. I don't think this is accurate however because that focus confines us to too many limitations; limitations that do not exist non physically focused experience.
Now, back to the observation principle. In order for physical reality to appear physically real requires an observation in each present instant.
We think we are made of this physical experience we observe. How can we observe a thing as physically real without being physically real at the same time? In other words, when we observe things, it is outside our physical identity, That would be impossible since in order for us to be able to observe we would have to already be observing ourselves as physical identity in order to make an observation. Since the observation principle is a reality of the Quantum realm, it requires an observer to observe us into physical existence. There is nothing unique about our physical being to make us an exception to any of the rules of Quantum reality or any other known facts of existence. If we are experiencing a master minded illusion, the only aspect of this illusion that can possibly exist apart from it is conscious awareness.
We think it is dependent on physical form and evolutionary biology, but
but our very process of sensory experience, the observation principle, and entanglement suggest otherwise; consciousness or self awareness, or sentient being, however you wish to define it, is independent of any physical dependency, illusionary or otherwise.
Hope this answers your request for an expanded explanation. For sure it is expanded! ))
Cheers

Could you expand on this? Thanks

 

[TRussert]

yes .. Einstein is reported to have said that our concept of time is an illusion, albeit a convincing one!

That's the rub Muhammad. It has to be convincing to the extreme yet hidden in plain sight! ))
Cheers

 

[TRussert]

No, I don't see why dreams would cease to be distinct from reality. Sorryl not sure what you are asking - can you clarify?

Hello Bunyip. What I am suggesting is that all experience is the same; that one type is no different than another and all are "real" because they exist, because they are experienced.
Certainly we must distinguish between what is "real" as physical beings from what is imagined just to make sense of our shared physical reality. This does not mean however that physical experience is any different than imagined experience at a more fundamental level of existence.
Are not these very words we are creating "real" only because of an ability to manipulate what we imagine? Are they not "real" experience while still in our heads?
If you can agree to that, then perhaps you might consider what is real is actually conscious awareness before physical being.
The title of this string is Do Concepts Exist Apart From Physical Processes in The Brain. I am suggesting that it is "concepts", or more specifically conscious awareness that creates physical identity, that physical identity cannot exist apart from consciousness, as our biological sensory experience, and Quantum Mechanics imply.
Cheers

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Hello Legion, In QM, and according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, matter and energy exist in the instant of observation.

Stapp, in Mind, Matter, & Quantum Mechanics includes what is largely a paper he wrote in the 70s on the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) and quantum mechanics. While I can't include the book for you, I have attached the original paper. It includes his correspondence with Heisenberg, who both commented on drafts of Stapp's paper and was a huge player in forming the CI. In the first reply, Heisenberg writes:
"I agree completely with your view that the Copenhagen interpretation is not itself a complete overall world view. It was never intended to be such a view."

Now, in addition to the fact that the CI is regarded in the literature as somewhere in between a myth that never existed and a vague & vaguely wrought interpretation of measurement as well as the wave-function, nothing in the writings of its would-be founders suggest that things exist only in the "instant of observation".

Spoiler: On the continuum of interpretations of the CI from "myth" to mostly meaningless and/or misunderstood

On the continuum of interpretations of the CI from "myth" to mostly meaningless and/or misunderstood see e.g.,

Camilleri, K. (2009). Constructing the myth of the Copenhagen interpretation. Perspectives on science, 17(1), 26-57.

Howard, D. (2004). Who invented the “Copenhagen Interpretation”? A study in mythology. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 669-682.

Schlegel, R. (1970). Statistical explanation in physics: The Copenhagen interpretation. Synthese, 21(1), 65-82.

Schlosshauer, M. (2005). Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 76(4), 1267.

Busch, P., Lahti, P. J., & Mittelstaedt, P. (1996). The Quantum Theory of Measurement (Lecture Notes in Physics). Springer.

Teller, P. (1980, January). The projection postulate and Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (pp. 201-223). Philosophy of Science Association.

Dickson, W. M. (1998). Quantum Chance and Non-Locality: Probability and Non-Locality in the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press.

Jaeger, G. (2014). Quantum Objects Non-Local Correlation, Causality and Objective Indefiniteness in the Quantum World (Fundamental Theories of Physics Vol. 175). Springer.

Mittelstaedt, P. (2004). The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the Measurement Process. Cambridge University Press.

Norris, C. (2000). Routledge. Quantum Theory and the Flight From Realism: Philosophical Responses to Quantum Mechanics (Critical Realism: Interventions)

Wheeler, J. A., & Zurek, W. H. (Eds.) (1983). Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton Series in Physics). Princeton University Press.

While this is only a tiny sample of my literature and my literature a tiny sample of the literature, it should suffice. Also, while I obviously I can't attach books to posts, if you're interested in any of the papers cited I can upload them here.

Without observation, there is no way to prove either exists outside of this instant of observation.

However, we observe moth all the time. What we don't observe are certain processes in quantum mechanics, and Bohr's solution was to interpret the quantum realm primarily as a mathematical one because quantum mechanics in one form is a procedure for deriving probabilities of outcomes given a particular preparation of some quantum system. In other words, Bohr (and by extension the CI, and by extension the orthodox/standard interpretation that almost nobody believes) viewed the wave-function as a mathematical entity that should not and cannot be understood physically, because (for him) it made no sense to speak of the properties or nature of a physical system that "collapsed" into a different state independently of the state of the quantum as given by the wave-function. Neither he nor Einstein like this problem with our inability to relate the formalism of quantum mechanics to a physical interpretation, but each "resolved" it differently. Einstein argued that QM was either incomplete or it wasn't a theory of physics (no more a description of reality than classical statistical mechanics).

Nobody argued then or since (well, not in the physics or even philosophy of physics literature, anyway) that the measurement problem or any other aspect of QM meant that matter doesn't exist until measured.

Even our scientific instruments, which record data without our observation, only yield that data in the instant of observation.

That was true in classical physics. The only difference was that in classical physics it was believe we could obtain arbitrarily(read, perfectly) precise observation values by using sufficiently "gentle" measurements so as not to disturb the system.

There is no way to prove that data actually existed until it was observed.

There is no way to prove it's there when you observe it either. This has nothing to do with QM and no relation to quantum physics.

The conclusion therefore is that physical reality and all sentient experience does not exist until the instant of observation.

This is antithetical to the CI and standard/orthodox interpretations of QM, as well as basically any interpretation of physics that exists apart from some very extreme views held almost entirely by non-scientists (let alone non-physicists).

I am using the term instant to get away from any assumptions about time. That's where entanglement comes in. It has been repeatedly demonstrated, with more and more sophisticated means of testing, that in the Quantum level of reality, there are no actual separations of distance and time

Quantum nonlocality, and the demonstrations of it that you refer to, require both space and time to be real. In fact, the fundamental observables in QM are the position and momentum operators and Schrodinger's wave-equation evolves over time through space.

You could take two electrons and separate them by the width of the Universe, yet what you do to one is instantaneously experienced by the other.

No. First, once you do something with e.g., one of two entangled photons or electrons you fundamentally disturb that system making it impossible to then check whether what you did to it affects the other in the same way. Rather, you are confusing measured correlations between entangled systems that show something quite different and that does not imply a causal direction. What EPR, Bell, and finally Aspect (in the first of many empirical realizations of violations of Bell's inequality) showed, along with others later (particularly Gisin) was that given certain assumptions, particularly realism, the correlations between space-like separated quantum systems couldn't be explained via hidden variables.

If the Quantum realm is the foundation of our physical realm

Then we'd be living an infinite-dimensional mathematical space with an inner product. In classical physics, the mathematical representation of systems and their observable properties exist in what we call the phase space of the system. However, for every observable in the phase space (momentum, position, velocity, mass, energy, etc.) there is a direct, one-to-one correspondence with the value obtained by measurement and the property of the system. In QM, these observables are never represented by values but by Hermitian operators (they are mathematical functions used to extract information via the statistical structure of quantum mechanics). There is no one-to-one correspondence as in classical physics, and the standard interpretation is that QM is irreducibly statistical.

You don't seem to have much of a grasp of the basics of modern physics, including QM. I'm curious what kind of sources you're using.

 

[TRussert]

Stapp, in Mind, Matter, & Quantum Mechanics includes what is largely a paper he wrote in the 70s on the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) and quantum mechanics. While I can't include the book for you, I have attached the original paper. It includes his correspondence with Heisenberg, who both commented on drafts of Stapp's paper and was a huge player in forming the CI. In the first reply, Heisenberg writes:
"I agree completely with your view that the Copenhagen interpretation is not itself a complete overall world view. It was never intended to be such a view."

Now, in addition to the fact that the CI is regarded in the literature as somewhere in between a myth that never existed and a vague & vaguely wrought interpretation of measurement as well as the wave-function, nothing in the writings of its would-be founders suggest that things exist only in the "instant of observation".

Spoiler: On the continuum of interpretations of the CI from "myth" to mostly meaningless and/or misunderstood

On the continuum of interpretations of the CI from "myth" to mostly meaningless and/or misunderstood see e.g.,

Camilleri, K. (2009). Constructing the myth of the Copenhagen interpretation. Perspectives on science, 17(1), 26-57.

Howard, D. (2004). Who invented the “Copenhagen Interpretation”? A study in mythology. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 669-682.

Schlegel, R. (1970). Statistical explanation in physics: The Copenhagen interpretation. Synthese, 21(1), 65-82.

Schlosshauer, M. (2005). Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 76(4), 1267.

Busch, P., Lahti, P. J., & Mittelstaedt, P. (1996). The Quantum Theory of Measurement (Lecture Notes in Physics). Springer.

Teller, P. (1980, January). The projection postulate and Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (pp. 201-223). Philosophy of Science Association.

Dickson, W. M. (1998). Quantum Chance and Non-Locality: Probability and Non-Locality in the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press.

Jaeger, G. (2014). Quantum Objects Non-Local Correlation, Causality and Objective Indefiniteness in the Quantum World (Fundamental Theories of Physics Vol. 175). Springer.

Mittelstaedt, P. (2004). The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the Measurement Process. Cambridge University Press.

Norris, C. (2000). Routledge. Quantum Theory and the Flight From Realism: Philosophical Responses to Quantum Mechanics (Critical Realism: Interventions)

Wheeler, J. A., & Zurek, W. H. (Eds.) (1983). Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton Series in Physics). Princeton University Press.

While this is only a tiny sample of my literature and my literature a tiny sample of the literature, it should suffice. Also, while I obviously I can't attach books to posts, if you're interested in any of the papers cited I can upload them here.


However, we observe moth all the time. What we don't observe are certain processes in quantum mechanics, and Bohr's solution was to interpret the quantum realm primarily as a mathematical one because quantum mechanics in one form is a procedure for deriving probabilities of outcomes given a particular preparation of some quantum system. In other words, Bohr (and by extension the CI, and by extension the orthodox/standard interpretation that almost nobody believes) viewed the wave-function as a mathematical entity that should not and cannot be understood physically, because (for him) it made no sense to speak of the properties or nature of a physical system that "collapsed" into a different state independently of the state of the quantum as given by the wave-function. Neither he nor Einstein like this problem with our inability to relate the formalism of quantum mechanics to a physical interpretation, but each "resolved" it differently. Einstein argued that QM was either incomplete or it wasn't a theory of physics (no more a description of reality than classical statistical mechanics).

Nobody argued then or since (well, not in the physics or even philosophy of physics literature, anyway) that the measurement problem or any other aspect of QM meant that matter doesn't exist until measured.



That was true in classical physics. The only difference was that in classical physics it was believe we could obtain arbitrarily(read, perfectly) precise observation values by using sufficiently "gentle" measurements so as not to disturb the system.


There is no way to prove it's there when you observe it either. This has nothing to do with QM and no relation to quantum physics.



This is antithetical to the CI and standard/orthodox interpretations of QM, as well as basically any interpretation of physics that exists apart from some very extreme views held almost entirely by non-scientists (let alone non-physicists).



Quantum nonlocality, and the demonstrations of it that you refer to, require both space and time to be real. In fact, the fundamental observables in QM are the position and momentum operators and Schrodinger's wave-equation evolves over time through space.



No. First, once you do something with e.g., one of two entangled photons or electrons you fundamentally disturb that system making it impossible to then check whether what you did to it affects the other in the same way. Rather, you are confusing measured correlations between entangled systems that show something quite different and that does not imply a causal direction. What EPR, Bell, and finally Aspect (in the first of many empirical realizations of violations of Bell's inequality) showed, along with others later (particularly Gisin) was that given certain assumptions, particularly realism, the correlations between space-like separated quantum systems couldn't be explained via hidden variables.


Then we'd be living an infinite-dimensional mathematical space with an inner product. In classical physics, the mathematical representation of systems and their observable properties exist in what we call the phase space of the system. However, for every observable in the phase space (momentum, position, velocity, mass, energy, etc.) there is a direct, one-to-one correspondence with the value obtained by measurement and the property of the system. In QM, these observables are never represented by values but by Hermitian operators (they are mathematical functions used to extract information via the statistical structure of quantum mechanics). There is no one-to-one correspondence as in classical physics, and the standard interpretation is that QM is irreducibly statistical.

You don't seem to have much of a grasp of the basics of modern physics, including QM. I'm curious what kind of sources you're using.

Exactly. I do not, nor do I want to have "too much of a grasp". One gets lost in the "facts" and cannot see the forest from the trees. My sources are Biblical Scripture, various books and articles I've searched out, and relating to a few quotes from Max Planck, and my own daily "instant to instant" experience.
I realize, given your intellectual propensity for this topic from the sanctioned/accepted scientific viewpoint, anything not "approved" by this discipline will of course be dismissed out of hand as ludicrous.
My endeavor is to understand all of reality from the perspective that there can be no conflicts between conviction and experience for what is ultimately the truth.
I am also convinced that reality is not reducible by mathematical formula, despite how convincing math seems to be at defining experience. It is part of the illusion I am suggesting may exist. I am not trying to claim any great insights here, just suggesting some ideas related to this threads topic that are considered unconventional, but potentially valid as well. It's up to each reader to accept or reject the challenge of these ideas.
Some quotes you may wish to consider

If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. —C. S. Lewis,The Weight of Glory, page 139

"It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." -Eugene Wigner

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. Max Planck

§ As quoted inThe Observer(25 January 1931)

In 1937 he stated “Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”

In 1944 he said “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

Now, as for your conclusion that I do not seem to have much of a basis in modern physics, including QM, perhaps you are correct. I'm sure everyone on a Religious forum is waiting to hear about complex mathematical statistical reducability of QM. I do feel your assessment puts me in good company, for Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrodenger, Eugene Wigner, and others would also be lacking in their grasp of modern physics especially including QM because each expressed concerns about Conscientiousness as a primary factor supporting all experience,; reality's most fundamental "structure". Not everything is mathematically definable, and the goal to define everything mathematically, while certainly a fascinating endeavor, is also an incomplete one because it has its limitations. Namely, the more that is determined, the more there is to question, so that instead of defining experience with predictability, it only creates more questions and less predictability regarding the ultimate question; what is reality? Reducing QM to statistical theory is hardly definitive. JMHO. Thank you for your responce.
Cheers!

 

[Bunyip]

Hello Bunyip. What I am suggesting is that all experience is the same; that one type is no different than another and all are "real" because they exist, because they are experienced.

I'm sorry, but I do not follow. No, all experiences are not the same.

Certainly we must distinguish between what is "real" as physical beings from what is imagined just to make sense of our shared physical reality. This does not mean however that physical experience is any different than imagined experience at a more fundamental level of existence.

Of course it is different - completely different. One is real, the other imagined - two very different kinds of experience.

Are not these very words we are creating "real" only because of an ability to manipulate what we imagine? Are they not "real" experience while still in our heads?

Well they are conceptually real, as opposed to literally real - seems a clear distinction to me.

If you can agree to that, then perhaps you might consider what is real is actually conscious awareness before physical being.
The title of this string is Do Concepts Exist Apart From Physical Processes in The Brain. I am suggesting that it is "concepts", or more specifically conscious awareness that creates physical identity, that physical identity cannot exist apart from consciousness, as our biological sensory experience, and Quantum Mechanics imply.
Cheers

Sorry, I don't get it. That does not make sense to me.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Exactly. I do not, nor do I want to have "too much of a grasp". One gets lost in the "facts" and cannot see the forest from the trees.

True enough. However, sometimes one sees an oasis where there is only a mirage.

My sources are Biblical Scripture, various books and articles I've searched out, and relating to a few quotes from Max Planck, and my own daily "instant to instant" experience.

I can understand (even though I don't agree) using scripture for a source, and it's great to read what you can when you can, but I might suggest that, if you wish a deeper understanding of quantum physics, personal experience is never going to help. Quantum mechanics (and its extensions) describe a world totally alien to us.

I realize, given your intellectual propensity for this topic from the sanctioned/accepted scientific viewpoint, anything not "approved" by this discipline will of course be dismissed out of hand as ludicrous.

I tend to give more credence to the methods used by at least most sciences mostly because even when it comes to the sciences there are entire fields I find have little to no foundation or scientific basis. In other words, I have a difficult time accepting anything and there is nothing in any discipline I either dismiss entirely or accept entirely. I am, for example, not an atheist but am agnostic. And unlike many other agnostics I know (whom I generally refer to as apathetic agnostics, to indicate that while they may not know whether there is a divine figure or figures they don't care) I have spent time learning languages like Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Arabic, etc., in part to study religious texts. I served as a research consult for a study on parapsyhology, I probably spend more time studying philosophy, history, theology, and religions than I do my own field, but I have found only more questions (and few if any answers).

My endeavor is to understand all of reality from the perspective that there can be no conflicts between conviction and experience for what is ultimately the truth.

A worthy endeavor. It seems to me, though, that a number of people seem to find no conflicts between their experiences and convictions, yet believe very different things to be true.

I am also convinced that reality is not reducible by mathematical formula

I'd say it's a good bet it isn't, we haven't much reason to think it is, and we have good reason to think it isn't.

If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. —C. S. Lewis,The Weight of Glory, page 139

"I have seen all the product of everything done under the sun, and see! It is all emptiness and suffering." Eccl. 1:14 (translation mine, and an attempt to best reconcile the LXX and Hebrew).

"It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." -Eugene Wigner

"Il n'y a qu'un problème philosophique vraiment sérieux : c'est le suicide. Juger que la vie vaut ou ne vaut pas la peine d'être vécue, c'est répondre à la question fondamentale de la philosophie. Le reste, si le monde a trois dimensions, si l'esprit a neuf ou douze catégories, vient ensuite."

[There is only the one truly important philosophical problem: there is suicide. To decide that life is worthwhile, or is not worth the trouble of living, is to answer the fundamental question of philosophy. The rest (whether the earth has three dimensions, whether the "mind" has nine or twelve categories) follow after.]
-Camus Le Mythe de Sisphye: Essai sur l'arbsurde

I'm sure everyone on a Religious forum is waiting to hear about complex mathematical statistical reducability of QM.

If one is interested in quantum mechanics, I imagine one would be interested in hearing about it.

I do feel your assessment puts me in good company, for Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrodenger, Eugene Wigner, and others would also be lacking in their grasp of modern physics especially including QM because each expressed concerns about Conscientiousness as a primary factor supporting all experience,;

Your average AP calculus high school student or freshman calculus student knows more about mathematics than Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, arguably even Gauss. That's because these and others did the work. However, it is not true that each expressed that particular concern. Einstein's chief concerns involved causality (and the apparent contradiction with his theory of special relativity". Heisenberg had his initial problems because his formulations of quantum mechanics was what call "matrix mechanics" and he didn't know what a matrix was (and, after Born told him, neither of them knew what to make of it and so went to Hilbert, whose advice they ignored despite the fact that had they followed it they would probably have derived Schrödinger's wave-equation). Matrices were rather new, calculus had been the tool of physicists since its inception, and even among mathematicians nobody realized the power of matrix/linear algebra. Nowadays your average mathematics major knows far more than Heisenberg, Einstein, etc., did about most of mathematics and undergrad physicists likewise know more. It's easier to learn something than it is to create/invent/formulate it. Wouldn't you agree?

Thank you for your responce.
Cheers!

Your welcome. And thanks for the measured reply and receptiveness.

 

[TRussert]

True enough. However, sometimes one sees an oasis where there is only a mirage.



I can understand (even though I don't agree) using scripture for a source, and it's great to read what you can when you can, but I might suggest that, if you wish a deeper understanding of quantum physics, personal experience is never going to help. Quantum mechanics (and its extensions) describe a world totally alien to us.



I tend to give more credence to the methods used by at least most sciences mostly because even when it comes to the sciences there are entire fields I find have little to no foundation or scientific basis. In other words, I have a difficult time accepting anything and there is nothing in any discipline I either dismiss entirely or accept entirely. I am, for example, not an atheist but am agnostic. And unlike many other agnostics I know (whom I generally refer to as apathetic agnostics, to indicate that while they may not know whether there is a divine figure or figures they don't care) I have spent time learning languages like Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Arabic, etc., in part to study religious texts. I served as a research consult for a study on parapsyhology, I probably spend more time studying philosophy, history, theology, and religions than I do my own field, but I have found only more questions (and few if any answers).



A worthy endeavor. It seems to me, though, that a number of people seem to find no conflicts between their experiences and convictions, yet believe very different things to be true.


I'd say it's a good bet it isn't, we haven't much reason to think it is, and we have good reason to think it isn't.


"I have seen all the product of everything done under the sun, and see! It is all emptiness and suffering." Eccl. 1:14 (translation mine, and an attempt to best reconcile the LXX and Hebrew).




"Il n'y a qu'un problème philosophique vraiment sérieux : c'est le suicide. Juger que la vie vaut ou ne vaut pas la peine d'être vécue, c'est répondre à la question fondamentale de la philosophie. Le reste, si le monde a trois dimensions, si l'esprit a neuf ou douze catégories, vient ensuite."

[There is only the one truly important philosophical problem: there is suicide. To decide that life is worthwhile, or is not worth the trouble of living, is to answer the fundamental question of philosophy. The rest (whether the earth has three dimensions, whether the "mind" has nine or twelve categories) follow after.]
-Camus Le Mythe de Sisphye: Essai sur l'arbsurde


If one is interested in quantum mechanics, I imagine one would be interested in hearing about it.


Your average AP calculus high school student or freshman calculus student knows more about mathematics than Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, arguably even Gauss. That's because these and others did the work. However, it is not true that each expressed that particular concern. Einstein's chief concerns involved causality (and the apparent contradiction with his theory of special relativity". Heisenberg had his initial problems because his formulations of quantum mechanics was what call "matrix mechanics" and he didn't know what a matrix was (and, after Born told him, neither of them knew what to make of it and so went to Hilbert, whose advice they ignored despite the fact that had they followed it they would probably have derived Schrödinger's wave-equation). Matrices were rather new, calculus had been the tool of physicists since its inception, and even among mathematicians nobody realized the power of matrix/linear algebra. Nowadays your average mathematics major knows far more than Heisenberg, Einstein, etc., did about most of mathematics and undergrad physicists likewise know more. It's easier to learn something than it is to create/invent/formulate it. Wouldn't you agree?


Your welcome. And thanks for the measured reply and receptiveness.

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
― Werner Heisenberg

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
― Erwin Schrödinger

Hello Legion,
What an awesome response! Yes, I am aware that Einstein refused to believe QM because of it's seeming lack of causality. I think cause and effect is so ingrained in our learned programming, it is almost impossible to consider an alternative.. The problem with a discussion like this is that it must be in terms of physically accepted "facts". Like cause and effect, so too must our thoughts and conveying them follow suit. How do we try to comprehend instantaneous experience limited to experience that is anything but instantaneous?
When I referred to my experience, I failed to specify I was speaking exclusively about subjective experience. I find evidence here that is totally supportive of the strange implications of QM, I agree with Mr. Schrodinger's assessment, as well as Max Planck's that consciousness is absolutely fundamental, and the mind is the matrix of all matter. I believe we have confirmation of this in our own "biological" function. The quotes refer to a matter dependent reality that originates in a conscious based fundamental or core reality.
I know if you gave it your attention and thought, you would experience what I am referring to. You need only follow the steps involved in the physical sensory process to the point of recognition and definition that process ultimately yields in our conscious awareness. The claim of course is that , biologically, we store sensory information and in our lifetimes build a library of such information that allows us very specific recognition of sensory input in all it's unique and seemingly infinite variations. Colors and all their shades and combinations, sounds and all their variations in tone and pitch, vision of much of what surrounds us, so unique that no two images can be exactly alike, and most only ever viewed once, like a cloud which constantly changes. The same is true for the textures and temperatures and pressures we feel , the tastes we experience, and the olfactory variations we experience. Quite amazing our limited sized brains can store such an immeasurably volume of data and pretty much keep it all sorted out. And that's for just us average folks. Add in the volume of knowledge people like yourself endeavor to acquire, and it becomes rather hard to believe this is all just biology at work.
Now consider how the reverse of the sensory process functions. Things must originate from pure consciousness. Ideas have to be created in a process we have little understanding of. These creations then get formulated, abridged, expanded, perfected (hopefully, but not always! )) in order to become the sensory input for others, as well as ourselves. How could anything "man made" exist without this biological process? How do these thoughts occur? Certainly they are based on our beliefs and imaginations, but where do these originate? In our brain, which requires a process contradictory to the 'statistical" world of QM, upon which our entire physical reality rides? For certain we can say that between our level of reality and the quantum level, there are a lot of illusions taking place, and they are experienced at every level of conscious awareness, including that involved with sensory experience.
My point (yes! believe it or not I have a point!) is when you focus on the conscious activity taking place during daily activity, you become aware of tons of subjective activity that is not bound by physical limitations, even when much of that activity is about physical experience. Add in dream experience, and while it initially can seem quite bazaar, there is the recognition that quite possibly, all our experience is actually subjective and what we call objective is very well orchestrated and overwhelmingly convincing illusion. Like a rock made of molecules, made of atoms, made of particles, made of quarks, made of ....., and each is progressively less physical than the former, and each progressively follows "rules" unique to it's own levels of reality. Consciousness can easily account for all this. Consciousness can be seen as the common denominator of all that is, and is consistent at every level of experience that (we think) exists.
Anyway, this will hopefully give you a clearer picture of what I have been describing, or further conviction that my grasp of science and reality is even more lacking than you originally supposed! That of course is up to you. Whatever your reply, I know no offense will be given, so none can be taken. ))
Cheers!

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

PREFACE


I wish to clarify something important about how this book is written.


It is customary, I know, for presentations about issues such as the one this book is about to refer plentifully to "sources," so that the reader can explore further the specific issues being discussed. However, I have not done that in this book, for two main reasons.


First, the concepts being referred to in this book have been written about by many, many people, and there is no way to refer to one, or a few, of these people who would stand out as being unusually important.


Second, it is my belief that the very existence of this problem (the "mind-body problem"), and its related problems, is due to a great extent to linguistic confusion, produced by the inherent ambiguity of language. Therefore, in this book I have attempted to develop a specific, highly consistent lexicon, the purpose of which is to obtain as great clarity as possible in communication and understanding. As soon as I would refer to some other individual's work, I would have to be taking into account how that individual was using his or her words in what he or she was presenting. This would immediately make this extremely difficult task dramatically more complex and difficult.


I also would like to clarify why I consider this problem, or set of problems, probably regarded by many as rather obscure and therefore unimportant, to be the most important philosophical problem that our species faces. This is because of my belief that it is extremely important, and increasingly so, that our species be able to come to agreement about certain basic things, and that what those basic beliefs are be as accurate as possible. Our species has become more and more able to do extremely influential things, and so while we have been able to do increasingly useful and wonderful things, potentially ultimately beneficial to us all, we have simultaneously become able to make extremely influential, and even tragic, mistakes, that will impact the whole future of our development as a species on this planet. Inaccuracy of our beliefs leads to the making of mistakes, and inability to agree tends to promote paralysis of decision-making.


We have to have a way of coming to agreement, and a way to optimize the chances of that which we are agreeing to being accurate. That would mean, I believe, that we should develop a relatively easily understood and agreed-upon lexicon for understanding and communicating about our most basic, fundamental ways of viewing everything. I do know that the vast majority of people will immediately say that what I am trying to accomplish is impossible, and therefore many people will simply not have any interest in pursuing the effort. I am hoping, however, that (1) I am correct, and (2) that there will be a few people who will make the effort to understand what I am offering, and will then advocate to others that such effort be undertaken.


Lest it be thought otherwise, I wish to assure the reader that I am fully aware of the possibility of a person being absolutely convinced that he or she has arrived at some "truth" that seems obvious and "undeniable," only to be shown later (if willing to be shown) that there are fundamental flaws in his or her way of thinking. I wish to assure the reader that I do not have the kind of feeling of certainty and confidence that I was just referring to. So I will be among those who will be interested in whether or not what I have presented here stands the test of conscientious scrutiny by others. I truly hope that it will, because I currently maintain the tentative belief that I am making a significant contribution.


I do wish, also, that the reader will read what I have written conscientiously, with an effort to understand everything that is written within the context in which it is written. I am well aware that it is possible for someone who is reading something to have a strong wish to demonstrate that there are flaws, and therefore to be prone to read superficially and thereby allow the words and sentences being read to mean something different than what they are actually meaning in the context in which they are written. Most of the words that I use in this book can have more than one meaning, and if a meaning other than what I am using is assigned to my words, I can be made to appear to be saying things that I am not saying and would not say. I have already had this experience in other things that I have written. The reader should indeed look for flaws in what he or she is reading, but the flaws should be with regard to the actual meanings of what is being written, rather than substituted meanings produced by using the words differently.

I do hope that I am making a contribution, but I fully acknowledge that I could be mistaken. Only time will tell, so to speak, and, of course, I may never know. Nevertheless, what follows is the result of many, many hours of work that has been not only quite difficult but also quite solitary, since it has not been possible to have any kind of prolonged, in-depth, meaningful conversation about these issues. If you, the reader, fully understand what I am trying to convey in this book, I believe you will understand what I have just said. This remains to be seen.

MIND-BODY PROBLEM: Introduction