Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Quantum can't model a mind using quantum
Collapse
X
-
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
-
how did I miss this thread?
Shunya, scientists can explain how the brain functions through neurons and synapses. How the brain controls the nerves and the nerves control the muscles. What they can't explain is how all that creates consciousness. self-awareness. Some scientists try to claim that perhaps consciousness is some sort of field effect or that the brain functions as a quantum computer and consciousness emerges from that.
Here are some articles on it:
https://www.sciencealert.com/are-we-...quantum-brains
https://thenextweb.com/artificial-in...ntum-computer/
https://www.livescience.com/37807-br...-computer.html
So yes scientists are trying to explain consciousness by turning to quantum effects.
Glenn is saying that that won't work.
I don't know if he is right or not, but your objection to him is baseless.
I can produce a dozen more such articles showing Glenn's claims that scientists are trying to explain consciousness with quantum if you need it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOkay, so you don't know what you mean by the superposition state of the quantum that is said to exists prior to our observation and collapse of it? Not trying to be difficult but being that you are a physicist I'd like to know what physicists mean by that. You seem to be saying that only consciousness exists, and that's certainly seems to be a possibility, but what does that tell you about the so called preexisting world in which the cat is in a super position of being both dead and alive.
Did you intend this with correction.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Posthow did I miss this thread?
Shunya, scientists can explain how the brain functions through neurons and synapses. How the brain controls the nerves and the nerves control the muscles. What they can't explain is how all that creates consciousness. self-awareness. Some scientists try to claim that perhaps consciousness is some sort of field effect or that the brain functions as a quantum computer and consciousness emerges from that.
So yes scientists are trying to explain consciousness by turning to quantum effects.
Glenn is saying that that won't work.
I don't know if he is right or not, but your objection to him is baseless.
I can produce a dozen more such articles showing Glenn's claims that scientists are trying to explain consciousness with quantum if you need it.Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-06-2018, 09:33 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostA quick review seems to indicate that the oldest source he has cited dates from the 1990s not 19th century, and most are from 2018. All but one are from the 21st century.
A further review reveals this:
Originally posted by grmortonHave you ever read George Berkeley's Principles of Human Knowledge? It is a 18th century philosophy book of major import. His views basically presaged what quantum says about the individual making reality. It is worth a read if you haven't read it. It deals with how humans know what they know, and even without any knowledge of quantum, he came to the conclusion that humans make their world upon observation. The Wheeler backward causation, where you can choose to see what you want about light being lensed by a gravitational lens and decide tonight to view waves going around a galaxy 2 billion years ago (you will see the waves on all sides of the intervening galaxy) or chose to see photons and you will see photons on one side or the other side of the Gravitational lensing galaxy. You can decide today what happened 2 billion years ago. That is observer created reality.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Posthow did I miss this thread?
Shunya, scientists can explain how the brain functions through neurons and synapses. How the brain controls the nerves and the nerves control the muscles. What they can't explain is how all that creates consciousness. self-awareness. Some scientists try to claim that perhaps consciousness is some sort of field effect or that the brain functions as a quantum computer and consciousness emerges from that.
Here are some articles on it:
https://www.sciencealert.com/are-we-...quantum-brains
https://thenextweb.com/artificial-in...ntum-computer/
https://www.livescience.com/37807-br...-computer.html
So yes scientists are trying to explain consciousness by turning to quantum effects.
Glenn is saying that that won't work.
I don't know if he is right or not, but your objection to him is baseless.
I can produce a dozen more such articles showing Glenn's claims that scientists are trying to explain consciousness with quantum if you need it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostPlease produce, and make sure they are in the scientific references of biological sciences, especially scientific biological references that support your assertion that science CANNOT explain the relationship between the brain, and the mind and consciousness..
Here are some recent BIOLOGICAL articles so your lazy rear won't have to do any actual research. Glad to be of service to lazy folk who can't even do a google scholar search.
Originally posted by Morten Overgaard, Jesper Mogensen"Visual perception from the perspective of a representational, non-reductionistic, level-dependent account of perception and conscious awareness, Transactions of the Philosophical Society B Biological Sciences 17 March 2014Human consciousness can be defined as inner subjective experiences, such as perceptions, judgements, thoughts, intentions to act, feelings and desires. These experiences can be described from a subjective, phenomenal first-person perspective. On the other hand, cognitive neuroscience explores the neural correlates with respect to brain topology and brain dynamics from an objective third-person perspective. This difference in perspectives is on many accounts a fundamental part of the reason why consciousness seems incompatible with neuroscience.
Originally posted by Patricia S. Goldman Rakic "Neurobology of Mental Representation, in Harold J. Morowitz, The Mind, The Brain and Complex Adaptive systems, 2018,"Psychologists have traditionally denied the relevance of brain to mind while neurobiologists have essentially ignored the mind, treating it as intractable and by default irrelevant. ...Nevertheless, schollars and scientists on both sides of the debate remain skeptical of one another's approach and doubts prevail concerning the issue of whether neurobiology can add insight to congnition and mental processing, and conversely, whether cognitive sciences can enrich an understanding of brain function.
"
I will no longer reply to lazy Shunya as he doesn't take anything seriously enough to even do a bit of looking around for himself, but asks others to do it for him. He is like that those people on the TV add who want their neighbor to interview contractors, get recommendations and schedule the repairs for them. Yep, Frank, that is you now.
Shunya, the only thing worse than being boring is being lazy and boring. you are bothLast edited by grmorton; 10-06-2018, 08:58 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by grmorton View PostShunya, this is precisely what you ALWAYS fail to do when we ask you the same. What a hypocrite!!!!
Here are some recent BIOLOGICAL articles so your lazy rear won't have to do any actual research. Glad to be of service to lazy folk who can't even do a google scholar search.
I will no longer reply to lazy Shunya as he doesn't take anything seriously enough to even do a bit of looking around for himself, but asks others to do it for him. He is like that those people on the TV add who want their neighbor to interview contractors, get recommendations and schedule the repairs for them. Yep, Frank, that is you now.
Shunya, the only thing worse than being boring is being lazy and boring. you are both
I never said that scientists have at present a full explanation of the relationship between the brain and the mind and consciousness. I referred to your own reference that scientists look to the biological sciences such as biochemistry to explain the relationship between the brain, mind and consciousness. The Biological scientists DO NOT look to Quantum Mechanics to explain the relationship between the brain, and the mind and consciousness. Like all our physical existence Quantum Mechanics lies at the foundation of everything including the brain. The physiological function of the brain results in the mind and consciousness.
Comment
-
Originally posted by grmorton View PostExactly. Shunya has become more and more resistant to data. Maybe someday they will explain consciousness with quantum and show the Nature article I cite is wrong, but until that day, I stand by what I said. It is up to date with present knowledge.
Comment
-
The claim has been made that biological scientists do not appeal to quantum to explain the brain. That is true because biologists never take that level of mathematics, never take a course in quantum mechanics (they do learn the quantum atomic shells for chemistry but that is as far as it goes) and so, don't have a clue what quantum is all about. Scientists don't appeal to things they no nothing about to be the cause of some phenomena. Sheesh
Comment
-
I'm through with this thread since discussing things with Shunya isn't really a discussion--either way I guess. Frank, I apologize for the ridicule, but I get very tired of people who just spout their opinions about things they don't understand and who want others to do the research they themselves could most assuredly do themselves. Theologyweb and all the other places are full of such self-important folk.
In post 29 Shunya said:" The odd way you worded the opening title reflects this problems:Quantum can't model a mind using quantum Read this again and understand the circular nonsense here."
The OP actually answered Shunya's complaint. Something inside that lab with the scientist can't be modeled by quantum. because if everything could be modeled, then they would not have gotten the contradictions they noted. They followed the rules of quantum and got inconsistencies. That only happens when one has two contradictory assumptions. By going through the 3 assumptions Frauchiger and Renner laid out, the most likely assumption which must be wrong is the one says that quantum can be applied universally. By universally, they mean absolutely everything from atoms to consciousness. But is that true?
We surely think we know that the biology of the brain's atoms and molecules can be modeled by quantum. So if consciousness arises from the action of the quantum controlled atoms and molecules of the brain, then quantum should be able to model consciousness. As I have shown, quantum mechanics places the observer-the consciousness above and apart from matter. This would indicate that consciousness is not subject to the quantum math/system. The mathematics of quantum mechanics has no mechanism describing collapse to only one reality which we observe and this is why the observer was required to collapse the wavelet. No other area of science requires an observer which is apart from nature for the theory to work. Indeed in the OP I pointed out that Steven Weinberg thinks it very odd that humans are part of physical theory. He said science "shouldn't have human beings at the beginning in the laws of nature" But humans ARE at the beginning of the laws of Nature; quantum says so. As I showed in the OP the observer is above and apart from matter. Thus, I showed that the likely place where quantum breaks down is in its ability to use itself to model a conscious observer--the scientist. Yes, the scientists body can be modeled by QM but can his/her mind be modeled by QM? I think this is where the problem noted by Frauchiger and Renner arises. Assumption Q of Frauchiger's and Renner's paper is that QM is universally applicable--to everything. This would include the mind/consciousness. If the mind is not modelable by QM then my title is perfectly well explained.
Nature magazine where the article was published entitled it: "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself". Let us ask who uses quantum theory? Only conscious beings use quantum. Atoms molecules etc FOLLOW quantum, but they don't USE the theory in the sense Frauchiger and Renner are saying. Consider the passage in the Absract:
Originally posted by Frauchiger and Renner, "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself". Nature Sept 18, 2018Here, we propose a Gedankenexperiment to investigate the question whether quantum theory can, in principle, have universal validity. The idea is that, if the answer was yes, it must be possible to employ quantum theory to model complex systems that include agents who are themselves using quantum theory.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI see no scientific references that claim nor assert that Biologists of various disciplines cannot explain the biological relationship between the brain and the mind and consciousness.
David Neild is a tech journalist. Very limited in scientific references concerning the subject at hand with only layman oriented quotes. The best it has to say with a reference is: "We will explore neuronal function with state-of-the-art technology from completely new angles and with enormous potential for discovery," says one of the team, Tobias Fromme from the Technical University of Munich in Germany.
Your problem is, like JimL, you can't just admit when you are wrong about something, and will go to extreme lengths making yourself look more and more foolish, to keep from admitting you were wrong or ignorant of a topic.
Just keep digging the hole deeper, Shunya, you may come out the other side eventually.
Comment
-
Originally posted by grmorton View PostI'm through with this thread since discussing things with Shunya isn't really a discussion--either way I guess. Frank, I apologize for the ridicule, but I get very tired of people who just spout their opinions about things they don't understand and who want others to do the research they themselves could most assuredly do themselves. Theologyweb and all the other places are full of such self-important folk.
In post 29 Shunya said:" The odd way you worded the opening title reflects this problems:Quantum can't model a mind using quantum Read this again and understand the circular nonsense here."
The OP actually answered Shunya's complaint. Something inside that lab with the scientist can't be modeled by quantum. because if everything could be modeled, then they would not have gotten the contradictions they noted. They followed the rules of quantum and got inconsistencies. That only happens when one has two contradictory assumptions. By going through the 3 assumptions Frauchiger and Renner laid out, the most likely assumption which must be wrong is the one says that quantum can be applied universally. By universally, they mean absolutely everything from atoms to consciousness. But is that true?
We surely think we know that the biology of the brain's atoms and molecules can be modeled by quantum. So if consciousness arises from the action of the quantum controlled atoms and molecules of the brain, then quantum should be able to model consciousness. As I have shown, quantum mechanics places the observer-the consciousness above and apart from matter. This would indicate that consciousness is not subject to the quantum math/system. The mathematics of quantum mechanics has no mechanism describing collapse to only one reality which we observe and this is why the observer was required to collapse the wavelet. No other area of science requires an observer which is apart from nature for the theory to work. Indeed in the OP I pointed out that Steven Weinberg thinks it very odd that humans are part of physical theory. He said science "shouldn't have human beings at the beginning in the laws of nature" But humans ARE at the beginning of the laws of Nature; quantum says so. As I showed in the OP the observer is above and apart from matter. Thus, I showed that the likely place where quantum breaks down is in its ability to use itself to model a conscious observer--the scientist. Yes, the scientists body can be modeled by QM but can his/her mind be modeled by QM? I think this is where the problem noted by Frauchiger and Renner arises. Assumption Q of Frauchiger's and Renner's paper is that QM is universally applicable--to everything. This would include the mind/consciousness. If the mind is not modelable by QM then my title is perfectly well explained.
Nature magazine where the article was published entitled it: "Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself". Let us ask who uses quantum theory? Only conscious beings use quantum. Atoms molecules etc FOLLOW quantum, but they don't USE the theory in the sense Frauchiger and Renner are saying. Consider the passage in the Absract:
Notice that they themselves are questioning whether quantum has universal validity and whether quantum can model the agents (read that conscious beings using quantum). The agents have minds\conciousness--they are observers in the quantum world, and the authors found that the agents can't be modeled. Maybe a more acceptable title would be 'Can quantum mechanics model an observer?'. The answer seems to be no. Thus again the reason for the title of this thread. If someone has problems with that thinking it is 'circular' which it isn't, they should immediately contact Nature magazine to correct them. Take care. Shunya has stolen another thread of mine. Next thread I post I am specifically excluding his uselessness.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSo basically I produce evidence that scientists are trying to explain consciousness via quantum and you try to pick apart the sources? It doesn't matter what you think about the accuracy of the sources Shunya. The whole point is that they are trying to explain consciousness via quantum effects. So your initial denial of that is proven false. Thanks for playing but you lose.
Your problem is, like JimL, you can't just admit when you are wrong about something, and will go to extreme lengths making yourself look more and more foolish, to keep from admitting you were wrong or ignorant of a topic.
Just keep digging the hole deeper, Shunya, you may come out the other side eventually.
One hint: If the title is in the form of a question? is is not a scientific article.
I responded to every questionable source you gave.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 05-28-2024, 01:19 PM
|
18 responses
97 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-30-2024, 05:13 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
3 responses
35 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-07-2024, 08:07 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
9 responses
90 views
2 likes
|
Last Post 05-27-2024, 05:48 AM |
Comment