The watch analogy

[Valjean]

OK. Now I think I see where you're coming from. We're speaking from different perspectives. I'm talking about mundane biology. You're speaking from a spiritual or metaphysical perspective.
The two "levels" are both legitimate, but they're incompatible. We're talking past each other.

I've read your posts in some other threads. I think our metaphysical views are quite close, actually, but quantum and automotive mechanics are two different things. Both 'true' -- but at different levels.

From an ordinary biological, psychological and cultural perspective we're just naked apes.
From a metaphysical perspective I'll concede we're all Brahman.

 

[Surya Deva]

There is a perfect correspondence between the metaphysical and the physical and the mental and the body. This human body is fit to receive a higher signal of consciousness from the ultimate than the animal body. The future human will have an even more refined body and physical structure with a more developed brain and greater function and ability.

Whatever body the soul incarnates in the soul is limited to its functions. The soul of a Buddha would have to observe the dharma of a snake if it incarnated in a snakes body. This means it would have to kill for food. The dharma of a human organism allows for advanced metacognition which widens the scope of function. The soul of a Buddha can make full use of this vehicle in order to gain libration and teach others liberation.

This is karmabhumi(plane of action) all beings incarnate here to acquire the karma to go higher in their spiritual evolution - even the devas. This requires the right vehicle though. The body of a snake to a deva is useless.

 

[LuisDantas]

What would that significant difference of human "biological matter" be anyway? Far as I can tell it simply does not exist. That humans developed metacognition before other species is essentially just luck of the draw.

Do you have an answer to my question?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you have an answer to my question?

Yep.


......

 

[Copernicus]

...However, nobody has ever observed themselves. This is a very old philosophical truth that has been discovered by Hindus, Buddhists, Hume and skeptics. If you ever try to observe yourself all you ever find is changing content, changing sensations, changing thoughts, changing experiences. There is no " enduring self" to be seen.

Nonsense. You have observed yourself in every way possible. You have heard, seen, tasted, smelled, touched, and experienced yourself. Your memories are what give you the sense of an "enduring self" even though you, like every other thing in the universe, are undergoing constant change. If you can be said to observe anything at all, your "self" is first and foremost among the things you have observed.

You are conflating terms here mind and brain. As I said earlier there is no proof at all that the mind and brain are the same things...

I have repeatedly denied that they are the same thing. I am not denying dualism. I am saying that the mind depends on a physical brain for its existence. Without a physical brain, there can be no observer.

...We know about the neural correlates of mind, but what we don't know is the mind depends on the brain. It is true that if someone knocks me on the head hard enough, I am going to pass out. It is also true that I can pass out by just having a very terrible memory appear in my mind. It is true that if I take a physical substance that affects my breathing it will entail certain mental states...

You seem to think that having thoughts somehow refutes my position that all of your thoughts are necessarily sustained by physical brain activity, but I am not arguing that you have no thoughts. I am arguing that you would have no thoughts in the absence of brain activity.

There are two entities here mind and body(the brain is another part of the body) and not just one. These two entities interact. To say there is only body here is devoid of evidence. Such a thing can only be stated as faith. You can say to me, "Yes, we have no proof, but one day we will" and plenty of materialists have used this one with me, but this is an argument from faith not reason.

I have never said these things. You are engaging in what Daniel Dennett has called greedy reductionism and imputing it to me.

The argument that a trauma to the head makes unconscious has already been countered by the classic argument of the analogy of a radio. A trauma to the circuit of the radio causes the radio to stop playing music...

Your "classic argument" is a classic fallacy--an argument by analogy. Radios function by receiving signals that exist and are detectable independently of the radio. The music can be received by other radios. We have no evidence at all that brains receive signals from a mind "broadcasting station". A better analogy would be a DVD player, which receives no such signals. When it or the DVD breaks, you don't get any music. BTW, read the link on argument by analogy. It makes direct reference to the topic of this thread--the watchmaker argument.

There is another very powerful argument. If one thing is actually an epiphenomena of another thing(in this case consciousness is epiphenoema of brain activity like software running on hardware) then that thing has no causal efficacy. It is totally dependent on the other thing and nor can it even know of that thing as an other. But this is false consciousness does have causal efficacy - it can directly interact with the brain. It is aware of the brain like all other objects. Thus to say that consciousness is an epiphenomena is as as absurd as suggesting software can know its hardware.

To the extent that this argument makes any sense (and it doesn't make a lot), it is obviously false. Machines can be built to diagnose and repair themselves. Making robots self-aware is actually something that roboticists want to do for pragmatic reasons. Robots need to be aware of themselves and their environments in order to complete their missions. For example, a walking robot has to think about where to place its feet in order to avoid tripping. It must constantly observe and modify its own behavior.

A Hindu argument goes as follows: the effect cannot know the cause, unless the effect ceases to exist. You an "effect" cannot know the actual cause of "you" because you cannot see your own cause. Just as the eyes cannot see itself. You have no power over the cause, because you are just an effect of it. So if it was really true you were really brain activity, it would have been impossible for you 1) know of your brain and 2) interact with your brain.

The Hindu argument does not take into account feedback loops. It was formulated in ignorance of basic artificial intelligence programming techniques.

I can see my brain if I want. All I need is a MRI scanner to show me it, or I can open the top of my skull and see the brain inside. Who is the one seeing the brain? Is the brain seeing the brain? Absurd.

I agree, but you keep attacking straw men. I never claimed that the "brain" observed anything. The mind is what does the observing. My position is not that minds are brains, but that their existence depends crucially on brains. Reading all of these straw men, I can only conclude that you have thoroughly and consistently misconstrued my position.

This is not the argument I was making. I said the proof of the constance of the observer between two state changes(mental or physical) proves that there something that is aware of the state changes, and itself therefore is not changing, but constant. If it also was change then there would be nothing constant to be aware of change. I never said here that things don't exist if we don't look at them.

Then I can make little sense of what you are saying. You describe an observer whose state of knowledge changes constantly over time, yet you seem to be claiming that the observer "is not changing".

It's obviously not true my thoughts and memories are conscious thing, otherwise everyone of my thoughts would be their own agents and do their own thing, decide for themselves...

This statement is utterly incoherent to me. Just because you have thoughts, that does not mean that you can have them independently of brain activity. And that is what we are ultimately talking about--whether there is anything about you can exist independently of physical brain activity.

Clearly neither the mind or the body is not conscious itself, they are just blind and inert matter. It is "I" who control them. If I want to go left - I make the body go left. I want to go right ...I am the controller here of the body and mind, and they are the controlled.

You seem to think that I am denying that you exist. That is quite bizarre, because the question I am addressing here is whether there is anything about "you" that could exist independently of your functionally active brain. Frankly, I do not think so, but I am willing to consider an argument that establishes that independence. Have you examined the scientific literature on studies of consciousness? Are there any experiments that you think support your contention?

I wrote my dissertation on quantum mechanics for philosophy of science...

Then you are probably better informed about quantum mechanics than I am. Still, you have failed to show how quantum mechanics in any way ties in with a requirement that physical reality is dependent on an observer.

I never said there was a deity. The Hindu philosophy that I am telling you here is Samkhya which is atheist(only observers, no deity or deities) In this case what we observe are things after they have been collapsed from their quantum state(decoherence) We cannot observe things in their quantum state. We can use the quantum domain to send information via it(quantum teleportation) but as soon as that information becomes quantum, we can no longer observe it. As it is no longer in 4D time and space. This was demonstrated by Bell that no violation of GR was taking place, because information travelling in the quantum is not taking place in 4D time and space. It is taking place in a special domain that is non-local time and space.

Earlier you had talked about Hindu creationism, and that led me to believe that you were advocating for a deity of some sort. I am not as familiar with Samkhya as some of the other philosophies. From what I have read, it is similar to some Western forms of Deism, in which human souls are thought to merge with the "oversoul". In any case, whether or not you believe in a traditional deity, you do take a fairly conventional position on mind-body dualism. You have faith that observers can exist independently of physical matter, but all the evidence I am aware of points in the opposite direction. Observers are beings that come into existence and cease to exist. Observation is an important aspect of animal bodies, because it is absolutely necessary for survival.

This is a dead ringer for Samkhya's akasha, a domain beyond physical reality which is non-local time and space. Nobody can observe the akasha, just as nobody can observe the quantum.

I think that you have fallen into the trap of imposing modern ideas on ancient philosophers.

I'll stop here and return to your other posts when I have more time.

 

[Surya Deva]

Nonsense. You have observed yourself in every way possible. You have heard, seen, tasted, smelled, touched, and experienced yourself. Your memories are what give you the sense of an "enduring self" even though you, like every other thing in the universe, are undergoing constant change. If you can be said to observe anything at all, your "self" is first and foremost among the things you have observed.

How does one observe themselves? If I observe anything, it is an object of my observation. It cannot therefore be me. If I observe an apple, it is not me. I also observe my body, so how can that body be me? Therefore I cannot observe myself. The eyes can see other things, but they cannot see themselves. Therefore your argument that I can observe myself is patently absurd.

have repeatedly denied that they are the same thing. I am not denying dualism. I am saying that the mind depends on a physical brain for its existence. Without a physical brain, there can be no observer.

This is a position you are yet to prove: that the mind depends on the physical brain for its existence and that there can be no observer without a physical brain. It is your faith, and I respect your right to believe it, but this is definitely not a fact.

You seem to think that having thoughts somehow refutes my position that all of your thoughts are necessarily sustained by physical brain activity, but I am not arguing that you have no thoughts. I am arguing that you would have no thoughts in the absence of brain activity.

Again as you have not proven that the brain activity is the substance that produces those thoughts. I will once again have to take this as your faith.

Your "classic argument" is a classic fallacy--an argument by analogy. Radios function by receiving signals that exist and are detectable independently of the radio. The music can be received by other radios. We have no evidence at all that brains receive signals from a mind "broadcasting station". A better analogy would be a DVD player, which receives no such signals. When it or the DVD breaks, you don't get any music. BTW, read the link on argument by analogy. It makes direct reference to the topic of this thread--the watchmaker argument.

No, the analogy is very valid in this case. You claimed that the proof that mind depends on the brain is because if you deliver a trauma to the head the mind is affected, therefore the mind depends on the brain. However, I can think of an example of a radio where you can deliver a trauma to it and affect it, but does not prove that music is in the radio. So your argument does not entail your conclusion.

You can only prove your conclusion if you can prove the mind really does depend on the brain and is produced by it, but so far all your arguments have failed to so do.

To the extent that this argument makes any sense (and it doesn't make a lot), it is obviously false. Machines can be built to diagnose and repair themselves. Making robots self-aware is actually something that roboticists want to do for pragmatic reasons. Robots need to be aware of themselves and their environments in order to complete their missions. For example, a walking robot has to think about where to place its feet in order to avoid tripping. It must constantly observe and modify its own behavior.

As there are no self-aware robots your example is invalid. Here is a better example: if I am an epiphenomena of a material activity then everything I say or do is caused. For example the computer character in a computer game is controlled by the player in the real world. The computer character in the computer game never can know the player in the real world, because it is an epiphenomena. Now if I am just brain activity, I should not be able to know my own brain, because I am an epiphenomena. But I do, therefore I am not brain activity. The logic is correct, sir.

I agree, but you keep attacking straw men. I never claimed that the "brain" observed anything. The mind is what does the observing. My position is not that minds are brains, but that their existence depends crucially on brains. Reading all of these straw men, I can only conclude that you have thoroughly and consistently misconstrued my position.

You just suggested something absurd - in fact spooky! If the mind is a function inside the brain. How on earth does the function get outside of the brain to view the brain? It is like the computer character getting outside of the computer game to view player. Impossible.

In your previous (bad)example of the robot how does the robot view its own program? It can repair its body but it cannot view the actual cause that is controlling it. Therefore nothing that can become an object of our knowledge can be the cause of us. The brain is an object of my knowledge - it is not the cause of me.

I can view my body and brain because "I" am outside of the body and the brain. Otherwise it would be impossible to view my own body and brain.

Then I can make little sense of what you are saying. You describe an observer whose state of knowledge changes constantly over time, yet you seem to be claiming that the observer "is not changing".

Read this part out loud several times and see if you notice something, "You describe an observer whose state of knowledge changes constantly over time, yet you seem to be claiming that the observer "is not changing"

............................ You are referring to whose state of knowledge i.e., the state of knowledge is a predicate of the subject observer. So if the predicate is changing, is the subject also changing? Nope, the subject remains constant and the predicate changes. To be aware that something has changed there has to be a constant subject. If there was a different subject between a state change then there is no constant subject to be aware change has taken place. The fact that we are aware of state changes means that we are constant.

Matter changes. Observer remains constant. Observer is not matter. Logical.

You seem to think that I am denying that you exist. That is quite bizarre, because the question I am addressing here is whether there is anything about "you" that could exist independently of your functionally active brain. Frankly, I do not think so, but I am willing to consider an argument that establishes that independence. Have you examined the scientific literature on studies of consciousness? Are there any experiments that you think support your contention?

Nope, I never said that you are claiming I do not exist. I said that I am the controller of the body and the mind. I am the controller and they are the controlled. I am obviously not the body and mind then. I cause them to act, they do not cause me to act. Your position is they are the cause, but if they are the cause then how do I the effect control them?

There is a scientific study on consciousness done by Karl Pribram which proves that memory is non-local. It is not actually in any location in the brain. Just as I said, that the mind is not in the brain.

Then you are probably better informed about quantum mechanics than I am. Still, you have failed to show how quantum mechanics in any way ties in with a requirement that physical reality is dependent on an observer.

Simple, matter remains in a superpositioned state until the observer collapses it. There is no particles until this happens, hence there is no physical reality. This what has been proven in several experiments in quantum mechanics.

Earlier you had talked about Hindu creationism, and that led me to believe that you were advocating for a deity of some sort. I am not as familiar with Samkhya as some of the other philosophies. From what I have read, it is similar to some Western forms of Deism, in which human souls are thought to merge with the "oversoul". In any case, whether or not you believe in a traditional deity, you do take a fairly conventional position on mind-body dualism. You have faith that observers can exist independently of physical matter, but all the evidence I am aware of points in the opposite direction. Observers are beings that come into existence and cease to exist. Observation is an important aspect of animal bodies, because it is absolutely necessary for survival.

Samkhya is not about souls merging into some oversoul. It is about observers interacting with matter. I do not take a traditional view of mind-body dualism, I take a Samkhya view. That is observer-object dualism. As mind is also an object it is included in the object category. So we believe mind is also another form of matter.

In any case there is no faith involved here just pure reason. The dualism between the observer and the object is irreducible. You cannot be what you observe. They are ontologically different entities. Now as matter is what I observe, I cannot be matter.

We saw how absurd and impossible the situation was for the mind to see its own brain. As absurd as it is for the computer character to see the player. Hitlary Putnam famously framed this argument as the brain in the vatt problem. If you are a brain in a vatt, how do you know you are a brain in a vatt?

 

[Surya Deva]

think that you have fallen into the trap of imposing modern ideas on ancient philosophers.

There is no "imposing" here. It is just noting similarities. Panini's theories which you noted yourself have similarities with modern linguistics. Are you imposing Panini theories on modern linguistics or just noting the similarities? The Akasha is a substance which is non-atomic and pervades all of time and space, within
it exists waves. Then it becomes particle. The quantum is a substance which is non-atomic and pervades all of time and space, within it exists waves. Then it becomes a particle.

As I said we Hindus had anticipated many modern scientfic theories. The logicians, natural philosophers and metaphysicians were just as advanced as Panini was in their fields, as he was in linguistics.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is a bold extrapolation at best.

 

[Lawrence.O]

Nonsense. You have observed yourself in every way possible. You have heard, seen, tasted, smelled, touched, and experienced yourself. Your memories are what give you the sense of an "enduring self" even though you, like every other thing in the universe, are undergoing constant change. If you can be said to observe anything at all, your "self" is first and foremost among the things you have observed.

Actually recent evidence disputes this view. I recently heard a lecture from Carl Craver of the Washington University in St. Louis. He conducted a series of interviews with man that lost all episodic memory (the autobiographical memory) meaning he knew absolutely nothing about himself. Regardless of having no knowledge about himself, not only did he report a strong sense of self, his moral character, aspirations and such did not change. This would imply that the sense of "enduring self" is in fact not tied to one's memories at all.

You can find his publications is you search "Carl Craver St.Louis Washington" (my account isn't allowed to post links apparently) although what I'm referring to likely hasn't been publicized yet (this was only a few months ago).

 

[Copernicus]

...So far I have only talked about observers. I have not attributed divinity to them...

I think that we are heading for a dispute over whether that waddling, quacking thing should be called a "duck". But let's not get side-tracked on whether your "Observer" is really a crypto-deity or just us ordinary people.

At this point, you have placed all of your eggs in one basket--the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. This interpretation is not actually a scientific conclusion, but a philosophical one. It states that an observer causes a wave collapse to a particle by the mere act of "measurement" or observation. Nobody disputes the scientific facts, only how one can make sense of them in ordinary language description. In my own attempts to make sense of what scientists are talking about, I have detected three basic mainstream positions on this: 1) Observers cause wave collapses (Copenhagen interpretation), 2) Wave collapses do not happen, but alternate realities are created (many-worlds interpretation), 3) the interpretations are misguided attempts to explain instrumental observations by analogy (instrumentalist "interpretation"). I do not know who is winning the popularity contest between Copenhagenists and many-worlders, but it is worth keeping in mind the instrumentalists' point that we are really working with imperfect metaphors to explain the results of abstract calculations.

But my objection to your argument is a bit stronger. You seem to be arguing that the Copenhagen interpretation somehow validates your belief that observers are immaterial--i.e. non-physical--entities that have causal effects on reality. This strikes me as one of those "skyhook" reductionist explanations that Dennett has complained about. Metaphorically speaking, science uses "cranes" to explain how things get lifted, but radical reductionists tend to appeal to "skyhooks". That is, you make some wild leaps of imagination to connect the reality we observe with the explanation you wish to promote. An act of "observation" is an act that takes place in time and relies on mental functions such as memory, which we know to be dependent on physical structures in the brain. That is, observations are always in some sense recordings of an event, and the medium in which the memory is stored is physical.

You are accusing me of saying things I have not said. I never said perception was passive. In fact on the contrary I agree that it is active. It is interaction between mind and reality. We we receive sense data, and we also impose on the sense data and the resultant is perception. So what is really out there is never seen by us. We only see things as apparent. So whatever our senses show us is not the things as they are. This is why I said that we cannot trust what the senses are showing us. It is not as things really are. To believe otherwise is naive realism.

I do not believe that it makes sense to talk about things "as they really are", because what is ultimately most real to us is our abstractions based on bodily sensations. We can only understand external reality in terms of how we interact with it, but that does not mean that we have to exist in order for there to be an external reality. An ant interacts with a chair in very different ways than a human does, especially since ants have no concept of sitting or human scales of size. However, the chair is real for both the human and the ant in terms of their own ontological grounding (i.e. their own bodily experiences and abstractions thereof).

...It is impossible that the monkeys would ever produce Shakespeare by typing in letter by letter until a string is produced where all the letters of Shakespeare are in sequence. This is because it is an intelligent design where letters are organized by an intelligent being into sentences using the rules of grammar and poetic devices. All intelligent designs involve arbitrary rules imposed by the creator, organization, planning and inspiration. These designs never ever arise by chance.

Well, on second thought, I may have to retract my claim that the monkeys-typing-Shakespeare claim is inherently absurd. While the number of possible sentences in a language is infinite, the keys on a typewriter keyboard are not, and the number of letters that make up a given set of Shakespeare's writings is finite. So, given enough time, it is reasonable to suppose that they would eventually produce just the sequence of keystrokes required to spell out Shakespeare. What is misleading about the scenario though, is that it does not relate to claims by evolutionists, which appeal to the concept of natural selection as a crucial factor in determining outcomes. Evolution does depend on probabilities, but not total randomness.

You have many things to explain sir. The initial aggregation of quarks to form subatomic particles...

Oh, really? And what is your obligation? To explain everything with an Observer-diddit claim? You have not even met the burden of explaining how experiments such as Bell's lead to the conclusions that observers are a necessary component of reality. Our models of reality may be imperfect, but they are models of something, even when we cannot explain their imperfections.

One thing materialists evolutionists conveniently miss out is how does an organism develop which then knows that it needs to go out there eat food to survive. How it is so conveniant that the organism develops eyes, when there is light. How the organism develops exactly that which it needs to survive in an environment.

Two words: natural selection. If you do indeed have a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science, I find it hard to believe that you do not understand how evolution theory explains such things. Look, have you ever considered why sessile plants do not have brains, but motile animals do? The former do not need guidance systems that make the expense of maintaining one affordable. The latter cannot survive without such guidance systems. Observation of events is a fundamental requirement of a guidance system. Hence, evolution favors the appearance of observing, thinking beings in moving bodies. Those that are better at observing and calculating movements in advance tend to be more successful at replicating themselves. That is what makes evolution non-random. To the extent that you think evolution is monkey business, you are dead wrong.

Surya, if you reply to every one of my replies as I get to them, we are going to have a combinatorial explosion of a discussion. So please give me time to catch up. So far, I am two posts behind your last comment.

 

[Copernicus]

I am really enjoying our discussion by the way. It is is intelligent, sophisticated discourse from both sides supporting our respective positions well. You may not be able to convince me of your materialist philosophy, and I may not be able to convince you of my Hindu philosophy, but we will definitely learn more about each others philosophies and why we believe what we believe. As long as we respect each other and listen to and engage each others point.

Yes, I really prefer this kind of exchange to the usual gotcha-fests that take the place of rational discussion. RF does seem to be better than most forums at encouraging rational discussions. And I do enjoy the chance to increase my understanding of your brand of Hindu philosophy. Although I am definitely more sympathetic to the naastika tradition, I really do admire Indian culture for the profound and very underrated effect it has had on the world.

A summary of what Hindu creationism says so far

1. The observers and matter are completey distinct and irreducible(Samkhya dualism)
2. Matter is originally superpositioned, unmanifest and purely potential until the observer collapes the state,
causing the consistuent forces to break out of the supersymmetry and initating material activity.
3. Matter gradually evolves aggregation from potential, subtle to gross. First evolutes are mind, then the quantum
reality, then the microscopic reality of subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, and finally gross matter, guided by
the interaction between the observer and the environment.(all evolutes arise due to the needs of the observer) The
apparatus of the body evolves gradually over time from single celled organisms to finally human organisms.
4. Evolution is purpose driven in order to eventually develop human organisms to reach the end-point of evolution.

My reactions:

First of all, this is not original "Hindu creationism" but an interpolation of it based on modern conceptions of quantum mechanics.

1. There is no reason to assume irreducibility, especially in light of evidence that brain activity is necessary for minds to exist.
2. There are possible alternatives to the concept of wave collapse, including the many-worlds interpretation.
3. Using the word "evolutes" here makes no sense to me. You seem to be making a grand leap from somewhere, and I fear a massive collapse of the comprehensibility wave once you try to explain it.
4. This is just a false claim that demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of evolution theory. Evolution is not directional. Natural selection can go in any direction, depending on circumstances.

Strenghts of Hindu creationism in explaining many unanswered questions today in science.

1. It explains why the hard problem of consciousness is the cause, it is because the observers are not
reducible to matter, but distinct from it and outside of it.
2. It explains how matter first collapses out of its quantum state and how and why it interacts with the
mind
3. It explains the order of aggregation of reality logically from the subtle things in existence to the most
massive things: Mind, quantum, forces, energy, subatomic particles, atoms and molecules and so on.
4. It explains the natural conveniences in evolution. How organisms develop exactly those features they
need to survive in their environment through its complex interactionism.

1. You have not explained the nature of consciousness by appealing to quantum uncertainty. This is "skyhook" reductionism. The question is whether observers are an effect of matter, or not. You have not shown how a quantum level "wave collapse" relates to consciousness.
2. Nothing that you have said even remotely explains wave collapse, but "wave collapse" is just one interpretation of quantum uncertainty. Quantum decoherence is another.
3. Actually, evolution via natural selection explains the development of complexity from simple interactions much, much better.
4. I suspect that the way evolution works is something of a mystery to you, and you think its needs some kind of magic to make it work. Actually, it provides us with a complete explanation of how organisms change over time through a process of natural selection.

The Hindus have anticipated every modern scientific discovery, so the chances are they are right about
everything else they posit as well. Obviously their philosophy gives valid scientific predictions.

So do you have a theory as to how Western scientists came up with quantum theory and not Hindus? This is a preposterous claim. All you have done is worked backwards from quantum theory to vaguely similar concepts in a version of Hindu philosophy that was not arrived at through systematic observation of nature. I have some respect for the achievements of philosophers, and ancient Hindus were very adept philosophers. But philosophers are not scientists, nor vice versa.

 

[Copernicus]

How does one observe themselves?...

Observation of something is awareness of something. You are continuously self-aware, and you have used every one of your senses to record awareness of yourself. In that way, you observe yourself. If you do not observe yourself, then you observe nothing else, either.

This is a position you are yet to prove: that the mind depends on the physical brain for its existence and that there can be no observer without a physical brain. It is your faith, and I respect your right to believe it, but this is definitely not a fact.

Actually, I have cited plenty of evidence already, but demands for proof leave open the question of what counts as proof for the one making the demand. I have cited quite reasonable evidence already, but it is possible that you demand something more than empirical evidence, which is never absolute. My claim has been that "all the evidence" points to a complete dependence of mental function on physical activity in a brain. I have cited examples of that evidence, but you have not really bothered to comment on it. Perhaps you could propose a single mental faculty that you believe is not dependent on brain activity. That might help to advance the conversation. BTW, referring to my position as "faith" is silly, since I have offered evidence. Every mental function--memory, volition, actuation, calculation, perception, emotion, mood, etc., can be predictably affected by the introduction of drugs into the bloodstream. Brain injuries to specific areas of the brain affect specific functions. One's judgment can be severely impaired by alcohol. Alzheimer's disease destroys memories permanently. Physical changes to the brain have inevitable, predictable consequences on mental function. What more can you ask for in the way of "proof"? Well, let me rephrase that. What more can you reasonably ask for in the way of proof that mental function is totally dependent on brain activity?

No, the analogy is very valid in this case. You claimed that the proof that mind depends on the brain is because if you deliver a trauma to the head the mind is affected, therefore the mind depends on the brain. However, I can think of an example of a radio where you can deliver a trauma to it and affect it, but does not prove that music is in the radio. So your argument does not entail your conclusion.

So, you are claiming that argument by analogy is not a fallacy? Would you stake your Ph.D. in philosphy on that?

As there are no self-aware robots your example is invalid. Here is a better example: if I am an epiphenomena of a material activity then everything I say or do is caused. For example the computer character in a computer game is controlled by the player in the real world. The computer character in the computer game never can know the player in the real world, because it is an epiphenomena. Now if I am just brain activity, I should not be able to know my own brain, because I am an epiphenomena. But I do, therefore I am not brain activity. The logic is correct, sir.

Actually, there is a sense in which even airplanes are self-aware, since they constantly monitor their own functions, record them, and take special actions when they detect certain conditions. They are not as complex as biological organisms that develop enhanced self-awareness, but it is easy to see why self-awareness evolved in biological entities that move around. Could we build a machine that has the same level of self-awareness as, say, humans or other animals? There is no reason to believe that it would be impossible, although I suppose that that is particularly hard for some of us to imagine. Your analogy with computer avatars is another false analogy. Such simulations are not self-aware even in the crude sense that some of our machines are, but we tend to interact with them as if they were. I know of research that has shown that people can't help but react to computer programs as if they were personal beings. Autonomous machines are something else. They represent still primitive attempts to replicate ourselves as machines. A very interesting and ironic phenomenon, given that biological life itself is all about self-replication. BTW, I did not claim that you "knew" your own brain. You keep conflating brains and minds--or at least you think that my position entails such a conflation, despite repeated denials from me. You do know your own mind, whether you choose to admit it or not. That is the one thing you experience directly. Everything else you "know" is by association with bodily sensations that your mind experiences (see embodied cognition).

You just suggested something absurd - in fact spooky! If the mind is a function inside the brain. How on earth does the function get outside of the brain to view the brain? It is like the computer character getting outside of the computer game to view player. Impossible.

Well, just let me point out again your conflation of "brain" and "mind", which I do not hold to. Regarding the mind, though, it is probably not a good idea to think of it as a single coherent entity. If you sever the corpus callosum of the brain, you can produce two centers of consciousness. Two distinct observers. How is that possible? Well, the brain creates your "observer", and a physical separation between the two hemispheres of the brain on that scale will actually cut off different centers of cognition. You can add this bit of evidence to the "proof" that you deny I have been giving you. A mind is a dependency of a physical brain.

In your previous (bad)example of the robot how does the robot view its own program? It can repair its body but it cannot view the actual cause that is controlling it. Therefore nothing that can become an object of our knowledge can be the cause of us. The brain is an object of my knowledge - it is not the cause of me.

You don't understand recursive programming. I have actually written programs that monitor their own behavior and alter it under certain circumstances. If you haven't seen it, I would recommend Douglas Hofstadter's Pulitzer Prize winning book Godel, Escher, Bach just for its brilliant exploration of the subject of recursion and its relationship to cognition. But that book is interesting on many levels.

Read this part out loud several times and see if you notice something, "You describe an observer whose state of knowledge changes constantly over time, yet you seem to be claiming that the observer "is not changing"
............................ You are referring to whose state of knowledge i.e., the state of knowledge is a predicate of the subject observer. So if the predicate is changing, is the subject also changing? Nope, the subject remains constant and the predicate changes. To be aware that something has changed there has to be a constant subject. If there was a different subject between a state change then there is no constant subject to be aware change has taken place. The fact that we are aware of state changes means that we are constant.

By this argument, nothing ever changes. Go play with a ball of putty and think about it. Or maybe you should reread Gottlob Frege's brilliant seminal article on "Sense and Reference". I assume that that was on your reading list as a philosophy student.

Matter changes. Observer remains constant. Observer is not matter. Logical.

If you believe that a mind is immaterial, then I think you ought to rethink your position here. It might change your mind.

There is a scientific study on consciousness done by Karl Pribram which proves that memory is non-local. It is not actually in any location in the brain. Just as I said, that the mind is not in the brain.

Well, some consider Pribram a brilliant scientist, but I would not say that most of those people are bona fide scientists. He is something of a cult figure among those who go in for so-called theories of quantum consciousness. I call them "so-called" theories, because I do not think that they make falsifiable claims about consciousness.

 

[Surya Deva]

I think that we are heading for a dispute over whether that waddling, quacking thing should be called a "duck". But let's not get side-tracked on whether your "Observer" is really a crypto-deity or just us ordinary people.

The sanskrit term is purusha and there are numerous purushas. The purushas are observers who observe matter(Sanskrit: prakriti - literal meaning the source of produced things)They are not agents though, all agency is matter(driven by the forces of the gunas) They are simply observers who observe matter from outside. As soon as the first act of observation takes place, the gunas of matter are set into motion and matter breaks out of her unmanifest and superpositioned state(Sanskrit: avyaktam - literal meaning unmanifest/unexpressed/undifferentiated) and then becomes manifest(Sanskrit: vyaktam - literal meaning manifest/expresed/differentiated) Then matter begins to transform and 7*7 levels are identified(49 levels of matter) of which 7 are transitional(Sanskrit: Vikriti) and 7 are stable states. In this evolutionary scheme of matter the first evolutes are mind and the last evolutes are physical matter. The ultimate level of matter is called quantum matter(Sanskrit: Moolaprakriti - literal meaning root or quantum source of all produced things)

At this point, you have placed all of your eggs in one basket--the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. This interpretation is not actually a scientific conclusion, but a philosophical one.

There is nothing philosophical about it. It is based on observations in the double split experiment where observation causes an electron wave to become a particle. The Copenhagen interpretation simply says what we are seeing. The cause observer observes the wave and it becomes a particle. Then Schodinger in formulating his wave mechanics proved that the wave was in a superpositioned state and this had to collapse for it to become a particle. But Schodinger did not like the obvious interpretation that an observer was doing it. So he suggested hidden variables. This was disproven later by Bell and others since.

In my own attempts to make sense of what scientists are talking about, I have detected three basic mainstream positions on this: 1) Observers cause wave collapses (Copenhagen interpretation), 2) Wave collapses do not happen, but alternate realities are created (many-worlds interpretation), 3) the interpretations are misguided attempts to explain instrumental observations by analogy (instrumentalist "interpretation"). I do not know who is winning the popularity contest between Copenhagenists and many-worlders, but it is worth keeping in mind the instrumentalists' point that we are really working with imperfect metaphors to explain the results of abstract calculations.

Multiple world theory is pure speculation and involves untestable entities like parallel universes. So nobody really takes it seriously. Hidden variable theory has been disproven. The Copenhagen interpretation is widely accepted by quantum physicists and so far every experiment in QM corroborates it. Recent experiments which were designed to test for reality(Bell's experiment tested both for reality and separability, the violation meant that either there is no reality or no separation or both) have been violated proving that there is no reality without an observer.

But my objection to your argument is a bit stronger. You seem to be arguing that the Copenhagen interpretation somehow validates your belief that observers are immaterial--i.e. non-physical--entities that have causal effects on reality. This strikes me as one of those "skyhook" reductionist explanations that Dennett has complained about.

The Copenhagen interpretation of course validates the observer is prior to physical reality. As the observer is required for there to be a physical reality. Even the big bang could not have happened if the observer was not present, because something was needed to collapse matter into existence(As Hindus argue, an efficient cause is required) So I do take it as a validation of Hindu Samkhya philosophy which says the same thing exactly.

That is, observations are always in some sense recordings of an event, and the medium in which the memory is stored is physical.

This is exactly what was disproven by Pribram. The memory is not actually in the brain. Even logically nobody has ever found anybodies memory in the brain. If they were there, we would have found them. We have the brain of Einstein in a jar somewhere, we have never found his memory. All I see is some grey matter.

I do not believe that it makes sense to talk about things "as they really are", because what is ultimately most real to us is our abstractions based on bodily sensations. We can only understand external reality in terms of how we interact with it, but that does not mean that we have to exist in order for there to be an external reality. An ant interacts with a chair in very different ways than a human does, especially since ants have no concept of sitting or human scales of size. However, the chair is real for both the human and the ant in terms of their own ontological grounding (i.e. their own bodily experiences and abstractions thereof).

It makes a lot of sense to talk about things as they really are because as I said what we see and the nature of what we see are different things. I see the sky as blue, it is not blue, it is the superimposition of light, air and temperature which gives it the blue hue. What we see is superimposed reality. We do not see atoms, electrons, quarks, fields or wavefunctions. If you could see wavefunctions you be seeing a whole new reality. You cannot see wavefunctions because your senses are not capable of seeing them. Our senses cannot see many things(ultraviolet, infrared, microrganisms, distant objects) If you took reality to be as you sense it would have a completely false image of reality. The philosopher Sellers calls this difference the manifest image(sensory) and the scientific image.

It is very clear we should not take what our senses show us to be real. Now QM has proven without a doubt there is no objective existence. Everything is interconnected through quantum entanglement at the wavefunction level. The senses show us objective things.

Well, on second thought, I may have to retract my claim that the monkeys-typing-Shakespeare claim is inherently absurd. While the number of possible sentences in a language is infinite, the keys on a typewriter keyboard are not, and the number of letters that make up a given set of Shakespeare's writings is finite. So, given enough time, it is reasonable to suppose that they would eventually produce just the sequence of keystrokes required to spell out Shakespeare.

Yes they they can type out the word Shakespeare because it is not a very complex object. However to type out the complete works of Shakespeare is a very complex object which involves complex rules of grammar, organization, planning, characters. It is a system and it is an intelligent design. It will never arise by just chance.

What is misleading about the scenario though, is that it does not relate to claims by evolutionists, which appeal to the concept of natural selection as a crucial factor in determining outcomes. Evolution does depend on probabilities, but not total randomness.

It is similar enough to apply. Natural selection is about random convergences that manage to survive, while all others get destroyed(they are selected by nature) Therefore it is just like the keystrokes aggregating one after the other to produce a string that produces a system of immense complexity like the complete works of shakespeare. In the case of natural evolution quarks must combine to form stable subatomic particles, subatomic particles must combine to form stable atoms. Atoms must combine to form stable molecules. Stable molecules must combine to complex self-replicating molecules. They must combine to form cells. These must combine to form single-celled organisms. These must combine to form complex organisms. These complex organisms then must develop organs, senses, brain must be all interconnected. At any point in the way a single error means collapse. In the same way a single error in the string of keystrokes means Shakespeare will not arise.

So you are begging the question by claiming that your natural selection has these magical powers by which it can create highly complex and advanced systems like human bodies which have central processors, organs each performing a function in relation to the functions of other parts. We know such systems require intelligence - because that is exactly what we needed to create robots(intelligence) We know that such systems needs vast amounts of code, intricate components that need to be engineered.

Chaos only gives rise to chaos. Matter is chaotic - it gives rise to chaos. If you can show me proof that any chaotic system has ever created a highly complex and advanced computational system like the human body, I will concede. Until then, natural selection is as good as elves and faries to me.

 

[Surya Deva]

Two words: natural selection. If you do indeed have a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science, I find it hard to believe that you do not understand how evolution theory explains such things. Look, have you ever considered why sessile plants do not have brains, but motile animals do? The former do not need guidance systems that make the expense of maintaining one affordable. The latter cannot survive without such guidance systems. Observation of events is a fundamental requirement of a guidance system. Hence, evolution favors the appearance of observing, thinking beings in moving bodies. Those that are better at observing and calculating movements in advance tend to be more successful at replicating themselves. That is what makes evolution non-random. To the extent that you think evolution is monkey business, you are dead wrong.

Natural selection is failing to explain a very important fact I can observe: the body is coordinated unit, every part is connected to other part which is connected to a central processor and everything works in tandem with each other. How does such an advanced and complex system arise by natural selection. If something arises as a system it presupposes that the parts were already coordinated. As far as we can see even micorganisms arise as systems. Nor does natural selection explain how organisms develop exactly those features they need to survive in an environment. Nor does natural selection explain the natural conveniances along every step of the way from the microcosm to the macrocosm. If a single ratio is off - kapoot!

Natural selection is in need of proof and until that proof is forthcoming I am not going to accept a theory that contradicts all logic and observation.

 

[Surya Deva]

By the way you said you were programmer. Perhaps you should write a program which simulates a chaotic universe and see if in this chaotic universe if you get a highly complex system like the complete works of Shakespeare, a sculpture of the Buddha or even a pot

If you can show me proof that a complex system could arise in a chaotic universe, which otherwise would require a human intelligence to craft it, I will concede to you.

 

[Surya Deva]

I really do admire Indian culture for the profound and very underrated effect it has had on the world.

This is due to eurocentricism which wants to make science, philosophy, engineering, art look like it came from the Greeks. So they ignore other cultures in the world at the time that were also making huge contributions in these fields, particularly India.
Nor they do they acknowledge that the Greeks most likely inherited a lot of their philosophy from the Indians, as clear similarities can be found which have older precursors in India. There are a few good academic books written on this subject which prove the Greeks borrowed from the Indians. In any case Indian philosophy and science was superior to the Greeks, and rivals even some of the most current philosophies. Panini is a case in point.

My reactions:

First of all, this is not original "Hindu creationism" but an interpolation of it based on modern conceptions of quantum mechanics.

This is Samkya philosophy. You can pick up any good book on Samkhya philosophy and you will find what I am talking about. I am using Samkhya terminology and describing Samkhya concepts. Samkhya is what inspired Schrodinger in the first place and this is attested by his biographer.

1. There is no reason to assume irreducibility, especially in light of evidence that brain activity is necessary for minds to exist.

Again this assertion is in need of proof that the mind requires the brain to exist. No matter how many times you assert this, it will not become a fact, until you can provide proof. Until then I am going to take it as your faith. Secondly, here I am talking about observers and not minds(conflating terms again). I observe a computer screen right now - I am not the computer screen. I observe my toe - I am not my toe. I can observe my brain - I am not my brain.

2. There are possible alternatives to the concept of wave collapse, including the many-worlds interpretation.

Pure speculation and untestable entities like parallel dimensions.

3. Using the word "evolutes" here makes no sense to me. You seem to be making a grand leap from somewhere, and I fear a massive collapse of the comprehensibility wave once you try to explain it.

An evolute is something that has evolved. Matter consists of several evolutes.

This is just a false claim that demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of evolution theory. Evolution is not directional. Natural selection can go in any direction, depending on circumstances.

Yeah I know natural selection has no purpose and direction. Hindu evolutionary theory has purpose and direction. Evolution is a fact - theories of evolutions are not facts. Your theory against mine

1. You have not explained the nature of consciousness by appealing to quantum uncertainty. This is "skyhook" reductionism. The question is whether observers are an effect of matter, or not. You have not shown how a quantum level "wave collapse" relates to consciousness.

Yes I have. I have shown that matter originally exists in a potential state and this potential state must be collapsed first to manifest matter(Samkhya argument) I have shown that the Copenhagen interpretation is proven in quantum mechanics which clearly shows the collapse of the wavefunction takes place on observation(empirically proven in the double slit experiment)

2. Nothing that you have said even remotely explains wave collapse, but "wave collapse" is just one interpretation of quantum uncertainty. Quantum decoherence is another.

It was first a wave and then it became a particle. Obviously the wave had to cease for the particle to appear. What caused it? Only one cause is present that would have caused it: observer. When it was not observed it remained a wave. When it was observed it became a particle. When it was not observed it remained a wave. When it was observed it became a particle. Clearly the observer is the cause of the collapse. Empircal evidence is showing this exactly.

3. Actually, evolution via natural selection explains the development of complexity from simple interactions much, much better.

Proof please.

4. I suspect that the way evolution works is something of a mystery to you, and you think its needs some kind of magic to make it work. Actually, it provides us with a complete explanation of how organisms change over time through a process of natural selection.

Nobody has ever proven how a species changes into another a species or how a catapillar becomes a butterfly. Natural selection is a theory and as a theory it lacks explanatory power to explain the most common observations. This is why it does not float with me. You accept it as faith.

So do you have a theory as to how Western scientists came up with quantum theory and not Hindus? This is a preposterous claim. All you have done is worked backwards from quantum theory to vaguely similar concepts in a version of Hindu philosophy that was not arrived at through systematic observation of nature. I have some respect for the achievements of philosophers, and ancient Hindus were very adept philosophers. But philosophers are not scientists, nor vice versa.

Hindus came up with their own quantum theory peculiar to their own tradition. As Hindu science is a rational tradition and not an empirical tradition, they did not do any experiments such as the double slit experiment, they just used pure reasoning based on observable facts to arrive at the same conclusions that matter had a quantum nature really and in this state it was purely potential and unmanifest.

Here is the reasoning they used:

1. All effects are observed to have causes
2. All causes in turn are effects of another cause
3. There must be an ultimate cause for all effects else there would be an infinite regression
4. The ultimate cause must be within which all possible effects are existent
5. Because the effect is really just the transformation of the cause. Like the apple tree is a transformation of the apple seed. An apple seed does not give an orange tree and vis versa
6. The transformation of cause to effect takes place over time: First effect is potential, then it is subtle and minute and then it gross and massive. Like the tree is first potential, then it subtle and minute, then it is gross and massive.
7. The ultimate cause then is potential only. But there is no other cause to collapse it. Therefore there must be another cause outside of it.
8. The observer itself is not a cause or an effect. The observer has the property of awareness and the chain of cause and effect has the property of production and change
9. Therefore the observer is outside of the chain of cause and effect
10. The observer therefore must be the efficient cause that causes the material cause to collapse

Then when this reasoning is applied to the empirical world, the following results are arrived

1) All perception is produced. It arises only when the senses are in contact with the object
2. All produced things are effects and have causes
3. The causes themselves are outside of perception
4. Therefore nothing perceivable is the cause of perception
5. The body is perceviable - it is not the cause of perception
6. The mind is perceivable - it is not the cause of perception
7. The mind is more subtle than the body. Therefore is prior to the body
8. I the perceiver am aware of both body and mind - I am not the body and the mind
9. If I am not the body and the mind then my identification with them must be false
10. I must therefore cease identification with body and mind by remaining a pure witness of body and mind.

From this evolved Yoga/meditation.

 

[mitchellmckain]

I am a physicist and I am entirely behind the Copenhagen interpretation which is indeed the consensus of the physics community. In fact I believe that the Many World Interpretation itself has an interpretation that is entirely consistent with the Copenhagen interpretation. However I found the following comment to be so completely absurd and outrageous that it amounts to dishonest rhetoric.

There is nothing philosophical about it.

There is EVERYTHING philosophical about it! These are PHILOSOPHICAL interpretations of the evidence. THEY ARE NOT THE EVIDENCE THEMSELVES!!! Nor are they even a theory that predicts something that can be tested for that is in the mathematics NOT these philosophical ponderings. That is WHY they are called interpretations.

Natural selection is in need of proof and until that proof is forthcoming I am not going to accept a theory that contradicts all logic and observation.

This reveals the speakers true colors, and suggest that it is not a scientist we are speaking to but someone engaged in pure rhetoric and thus this scientific terminology is really not much different than the techno-babble used in Star Trek -- however much it may sound impressive to the uneducated. It is in fact just fantasy. I am physicist and a Christian but even I can recognize the simple fact that there is no scientific theory in existence with more evidence in support of it than that of natural selection.

The cause observer observes the wave and it becomes a particle. Then Schodinger in formulating his wave mechanics proved that the wave was in a superpositioned state and this had to collapse for it to become a particle. But Schodinger did not like the obvious interpretation that an observer was doing it. So he suggested hidden variables. This was disproven later by Bell and others since.

This is a false dichotomy and misleading in many respects. The principle proponent of hidden variable theory which was indeed in opposition to the Copenhagen interpretation was Albert Einstein, and the Bell experiments did indeed settle the issue. But the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment demonstrated the absurdity of thinking that decoherence was a result of mere observation, and so I think the majority of the scientific community is quite convinced that the cause of decoherence is found not in human consciousness but in physical interactions between particles. I personally think it is an effect that is closely associated with the process of amplification which chaotic dynamics suggests involves the phenomenon of bifurcation which has many similar features.

Multiple world theory is pure speculation and involves untestable entities like parallel universes. So nobody really takes it seriously. Hidden variable theory has been disproven. The Copenhagen interpretation is widely accepted by quantum physicists and so far every experiment in QM corroborates it.

Everett's many world interpretation has nothing to do with hidden variable theory, and the Bell inequality experiments do not rule out the Everett's interpretation at all. However it is true that the majority of scientists don't really take seriously the idea of many actual worlds as viable scientific entities for explaining quantum physics. There is in fact a simple explanation for Everett's mathematics (that recovers determinism by resorting to a superposition of many worlds) and that is that these are simply a superpostion of possible future realities.

The Copenhagen interpretation of course validates the observer is prior to physical reality. As the observer is required for there to be a physical reality.

The Copenhagen interpretation does no such thing and the majority of scientists DO NOT suscribe to any such thing. In fact more scientist go for the many worlds interpretation than accept this observer/consciousness centered nonsense.

This is exactly what was disproven by Pribram. The memory is not actually in the brain. Even logically nobody has ever found anybodies memory in the brain. If they were there, we would have found them. We have the brain of Einstein in a jar somewhere, we have never found his memory. All I see is some grey matter.

This is a gaps theory if I ever heard one. Scientists WILL find memory in the brain and all your words will be revealed as nothing but hot air. Look I am a Christian and I believe in a spiritual aspect to existence but trying to fill this into the gaps of current science just makes you look desperate and silly.

Chaos only gives rise to chaos. Matter is chaotic - it gives rise to chaos. If you can show me proof that any chaotic system has ever created a highly complex and advanced computational system like the human body, I will concede. Until then, natural selection is as good as elves and faries to me.

But it has been demonstrated conclusively that a nonlinear system of mathematical rules can give rise to order, complexity, unpredictability, and even a phenomenon of self-organization, which I have every expectation will soon be a part of a new scientific theory of abiogenesis.

 

[Surya Deva]

Namaste Michell,

It is rather interesting that as a Christian you would oppose attempts at the scientific reconcilation with religion. However, I understand many Christans subscribe to the Cartesian dogma which sets those apart(my own professor was of the same mindset, and he was Christian) However, as a Hindu, I no such prejudice. We never had to deal with false dualisms like the Cartesian one. Many Hindus(not all) do think science and religion are one and the same thing and it believed Hinduism is a scientific religion. In Hinduism, religion is called paravidya(higher science) and we do treat it is like a science. I personally subscribe to the paramana scientific method in Hindu science which consists of empirical methods, rational methods and phenomenological methods. I accept the validity of all methods and not just empirical methods. Even in modern science, theoretical and qualitative research methods are used.

Now your main objection is to my assertions about QM. Let us deal with those:

There is EVERYTHING philosophical about it! These are PHILOSOPHICAL interpretations of the evidence. THEY ARE NOT THE EVIDENCE THEMSELVES!!! Nor are they even a theory that predicts something that can be tested for that is in the mathematics NOT these philosophical ponderings. That is WHY they are called interpretations.

QM is an empirical science, it is not about speculation as philosophy is. The observation that the observer is collapsing the wavefunction is as valid as the observation that objects are falling due to the cause of gravity. This is because, this is exactly what is observed in the double slit experiment. It is only when the wave is observed does it become a particle. When it is not observed, it remains a wave. Therefore the observer is the cause. There is no other cause observable other than the observer.

The reason that this conclusion has not been accepted has nothing to do with science, but to do with politics and religion. The conclusion that reality is observer dependent is obscene both to the materialist and the Christian evangalist who, like the materialist, believes in a real world. The conclusion that reality is observer dependent supports Eastern religious views, many of which are idealist. I have read the works of many physicists, including the famous Fritjof Capra who affirm the similarity. Realists have had problems with QM from the very start and either flatly dismised it, insulted it or demanded more experiments in hope to falsify the Copenhagen interpretation. After more than 80 years of vigorous experiments thrown at QM, the Copenhagen interpretation remains standing. Every experiment which has been done in hope to falsify it has on the contrary corroborated the Copenhagen interpretation.

The first attempt was by Schrodinger in order to show what he believed to be absurd about QM with Schodingers cat problem. Einstein similarly showed in formulating the EPR problem that QM lead to absurd conclusions such as a quantumly entangled system would entail that affecting one particle in the system would affect another particle not acted on, even millions of miles away. Yet, despite all these objections, Bell demonstrated in forumlating the test of the Bell inequalities which was then first done by Aspect, that there is no absurdity and quantum information was taking place outside of time and space in a non-local domain. The violation of the Bell inequalities meant that there was no such thing as separability and likely even physical reality. Recent tests that have tested for reality have also been violated proving there is no physical reality either.

Wigner demonstrated with a logical argument and formulating his own version of Schodingers cat that because a quantum system is entangled and superpositioned, something that is unentangled and superpositioned is required to collapse that state. This state only ends at the conscious observer. That is to say, that we only become aware of physical reality when we observe it. So clearly the observer is required to collapse the state. Wigners main inquiry was not into whether the observer collapsed the state or not, which was obvious to him(and everybody else who was not a dogmatic realist) but which observer collapsed it.(A dead ringer for the Hindu argument)

All other interpretations which have attempted to exorcise the observer from QM have been pure speculation. The Everett hypothesis of many worlds which involves such untestable entities like reality collapsing into a parallel universe everytime an observation is made is nothing but pure fantasy. Other explanations have been mathematical gymnastics with not a shred of proof. Simply put, the history of QM has been riddled by the fear, anxiety and supersition of realists who cannot accept the obvious conclusion it has uncovered: reality is observer-dependent - even after 80 years of vigorous experiments. So most physicists today simply accept the Copenhagen interpretation, but ignore its ontological implications - they brush it under the carpet. Anybody who dares to examine this area, is persecuted. In a book I read recently written by quantum physicists it recounts the anecdote of a conference on QM which was discussing the observer. In the conference a section that were present actually turned violent and abusive because the subject was getting any attention at all.

It is clear that those who are opposing the Copenhagen discovery are not coming from a position of science, but a position of religion and politics. It is their faith that a real world exists and it will remain their faith, for it will never become a fact. Just as the flat earth will never become a fact.

 

[mitchellmckain]

It is rather interesting that as a Christian you would oppose attempts at the scientific reconcilation with religion.

I oppose no such thing. With a masters in physics and a masters in divinity, if there is anything which I oppose, it is those who from some ideological position denounce the value of either science or religion. I very much support the PHILOSOPHICAL reconciliation of religion and science as a legitimate activity of those like myself who are interested in it, but what I oppose is the distortion of science to fit religious dogma and confusion of this philosophical endeavor with the work of scientific inquiry itself. In opposition to the attempts of positivists to denounce metaphysics (the study of the nature of reality) as meaningless, I very much support the effort to understand the implications of modern science for our understanding of reality.

Science has developed an amazing methodology for getting at the truth about some things that amounts to an extension of sight to see the world with the eyes of reason beyond the limits of our senses, so that we have this unprecedented ability to discover new and unexpected things about the world. Furthermore it is a methodology that acheives a consensus like nothing else. Now I will argue against the premise of the naturalists that this is the limit of reality and rationality, but it is clear that other endeavors like philosophy and theology certainly do not have any means of achieving any consensus. So we can agree upon the things that we can see right in front of us with our eyes (including their extension by science), but those things of the spirit that we cannot see (except perhaps by reason that is less than perfectly objective) is something that we just have to accept a diversity of opinion about.

However, I understand many Christans subscribe to the Cartesian dogma which sets those apart(my own professor was of the same mindset, and he was Christian)

Cartesian dogma? As in a mechanical universe designed by God? That the universe is governed by fixed mathematical laws is a demonstrable fact, just as is the fact that this system of mathematical laws is not a closed causal system. The latter is indeed an unavoidable consequence of the Copenhagen interpretation and Bell inequality experiments -- so that physical determinism is quite dead. On the large scale the universe certainly is mechanical, but it is not a clockwork because the mathematical laws have limits at the quantum level.

Your issues with and inability to understand your professor is your problem which you should avoid projecting on others. Christianity is a highly diverse group and most people quickly find out that their prejudices don't even come close to applying to me. For example, I certainly do reject what I see in your position as an unrealistic extreme, but I very much do see that there is an extent to which belief creates reality and I even assert that there an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality itself and this is where I think we can find the spiritual aspect of it. But this does not change the fundamental experience of the scientist that there is an objective reality out there and that is why I am a critical realist as most scientists must be because of that undeniable experience.

Yes Christians believe in a God who created the universe for purpose and so when we look at the universe we see a design that fits that purpose. From the mathematics that demonstrate how this process of self-organization we call life can come from a nonlinear system of rules, the necessity of the mathematical mechanical nature of the universe for the existence of life is made clear. The limits of this mathematical mechanical nature of the universe however suggest to those who believe in a creator that rather than simply being a observer, God created life so that He can participate and be a part of our lives. It also suggests that our most fundamental human experience of free will is not an illusion or in our heads but very much has a basis in reality.

If you want to call that Cartesian dogma despite the complete inaccuracy of that kind of prejudicial labeling, then I respond by suggesting that you yourself cling to the archaic Cartesian metaphysics of dualism in opposition to the discoveries of physiological and neurological sciences. It is simple minded approach that fails to deal with the scientific facts. However much in your theological approach to the world you want to identify the mind with the spirit of your religion, science makes it clear that the mind is very much a physical thing that can be altered by physical manipulations by an external physical agent. I don't think that this proves that the spirit does not exist, but if it does exist (as I believe it does) then it is far more subtle than this naive approach of dualism.

However, as a Hindu, I no such prejudice.

Yes religious ideologues often identify science with prejudice. But science simply tries to understand the universe without the prejudice of religious or ideological dogmas.

Now your main objection is to my assertions about QM.
...

All I hear from you on that score is a refusal to listen. I am a physicist. I know the physics and your philosophical interpretations are not physics.

The reason that this conclusion has not been accepted has nothing to do with science, but to do with politics and religion.

A rather typical attempt of a religious ideologue to dismiss the conclusions of science.

Simply put, the history of QM has been riddled by the fear, anxiety and supersition of realists who cannot accept the obvious conclusion it has uncovered: reality is observer-dependent - even after 80 years of vigorous experiments.

LOL This is such a typical reaction of a religious ideologue. Yes the prevailing scientific opinions have met some uncomfortable events overturning of their worldview both when it was discovered that the universe was not steady state and when QM brought the viability of physical determinism to an end. BUT it is precisely these uncomfortable events where reality goes against all their instincts about what they think must be the case which proves to the scientist that there is an objective reality out there.

There is no doubt that these can be seen as victories for certain religious points of view, such as the one that always believed that the universe had beginning and others that felt that the clockwork view of the world was missing something. But the way in which religious ideologues LOVE to jump on these events and exaggerate them with such absurdities as seeing fear in the scientists ONLY goes to show that their real attitude towards science is adversarial. The reality is that the faith and dedication of scientists to the discovery of the truth puts the religious to shame.

 

[mitchellmckain]

I have only been responding to the end of this discussion so I started looking at its beginnings so here is my response to the beginning.

I want your views on the analogy of the watch and the universe. That a watch is intricate and must have a creator and the universe is more intricate and unique therefore it must have a creator and the creator must be God. I need your views soon. Thnx for reading. Please reply.:shout:help:

I find all arguments for the existence of God to be fundamentally subjective and thus utterly incapable of convincing a skeptic (and with that part of Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion" I have no argument). They may indeed represent some of the subjective reasons why a person comes to believe in God, but they do not prove their case by any means. Copernicus is quite correct in pointing out that the argument fails to deal with the fact that complexity and self-organization can arise from a simple nonlinear system of rules (see the game of life and Erich Jantsch's book "The Self Organizing Universe").

It does seem to me that the mathematical laws of the universe are designed for a purpose, but I do not believe that living things are a product of design. In fact, I believe that the whole idea of design is fundamentally incompatable with the nature of life itself. Richard Dawkins coins the wonderful word "designoid" in his book "Climbing Mount Improbable" for those things that may seem like they are designed but are not, and I very much think that this applies to living things to some degree. What I disagree with is his reductionist effort to see living things as nothing but mechanical extensions of genetic material. DNA is simply an information storage mechanism and the intentionality does not come from these but is emergent in the entire organism. I would in fact go in the other direction (opposite of reductionist) to say that for biological organisms it is primarily the species as a whole in its will to survive that exhibits learning and innovation at finding new ways to live and adapting to a constantly changing environment.