Quantum consciousness

[Gandahar]

Thesprucegoose said:

Chester35 said:

"Yes but the principle is the fact the observation was created by humans, this doesn't happen in nature, whether the person or machine is monitoring it is pretty much the same result."

Your initial premise was that the human mind could effect quantum mechanics and now you are saying actually you get the same results if you use a machine instead. Isn't this contradicting your initial statement though?

I think you misread what i have written, my opening statement clearly has two seperate points that you seemed to have missed.

if you read the thread, it i've given examples of experiments that clearly use tools to measure the effects. I then later mentioned an experiment to then link the actual human impact of the experiments, which has not been done yet. This is a problem on here in general people don't read the whole thread.

Chester35 said:

Creation of an experiment doesn't mean there is a connection between the mind and the results of an experiment.

Again i've posted this information before from bbc article, but here it is again and relevant text.

The physicist Pascual Jordan, who worked with quantum guru Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the 1920s, put it like this: "observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position." In other words, Jordan said, "we ourselves produce the results of measurements."

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Thursday 5th December 00:07

LOL, Chester35 didn't read the whole thread and in summary here is a BBC article to wrap it all up !



I'm guessing Sprucegoose will be the perpetual motion machine trying to prove he was scientific on here with some ill thought out hogwash.

On that bombshell ... I leave, probability wise..... keep going ....

[anonymous-user]

i don't have to prove anything. If people want to post and dicuss that is the point of a forum. The problem on here people think it is about winning an argument. There is no win it is an open debate question that clearly hasn't been validated. I pointed to articles as it was getting tedious.

As i pointed out many times, dark energy is believed by the best scientists in the world, yet doesn't exist, wasn't found in a recent experiment that was supposed to find it, yet people still believe it.

[Gandahar]

And in case it still does register, and I have been going on about this for ages, this

The physicist Pascual Jordan, who worked with quantum guru Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the 1920s, put it like this: "observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position." In other words, Jordan said, "we ourselves produce the results of measurements."

Doesn't actually mean anything to do with the human brain, just that when we measure something we cause a different result.

Compel and observation here gives an indication we are somewhat involved. We are not, it is just bad wording for the unwary.

[Gandahar]

Thesprucegoose said:

i don't have to prove anything. If people want to post and dicuss that is the point of a forum. The problem on here people think it is about winning an argument. There is no win it is an open debate question that clearly hasn't been validated. I pointed to articles as it was getting tedious.

As i pointed out many times, dark energy is believed by the best scientists in the world, yet doesn't exist, wasn't found in a recent experiment that was supposed to find it, yet people still believe it.

Personally I think your argument was ill conceived and poorly thought out. Since then you have side tracked and gone onto not relevant topics like dark energy and monkey experiments whilst disparaging other peoples points.

Not scientfic at all.

You still haven't linked to a scientific paper in these pages that actually refers to some quantum consciousness results in humans.

If you had started off the thread on a philosophical bent rather than a claimed scientific one then that would have been better in hindsight.

[anonymous-user]

Gandahar said:

Personally I think your argument was ill conceived and poorly thought out. Since then you have side tracked and gone onto not relevant topics like dark energy and monkey experiments whilst disparaging other peoples points.

Not scientfic at all.

You still haven't linked to a scientific paper in these pages that actually refers to some quantum consciousness results in humans.

If you had started off the thread on a philosophical bent rather than a claimed scientific one then that would have been better in hindsight.

i think the problem on a forum it attracts people who want to validate their self-worth by proving others wrong. You are implying by proxy that notable scientists such as Penrose are wrong as well, and yourself and other commentators attack my argument, which may be weak, I never implied it wasn’t fuzzy. when the similar statement has been made by much greater minds than what frequent PH.

Again it was an open discussion, people can choose to participate and there has been some good discussions,unfortunately not by yourself though..

[ReverendCounter]

Gandahar said:

You still haven't linked to a scientific paper in these pages that actually refers to some quantum consciousness results in humans.

This is as close as you're going to get - the linked paper actually gives you all of the answers you're demanding but as soon as you read it, it turns into a precise description of experiments rather than the results.

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047v1

[Halb]

Thesprucegoose said:

i think the problem on a forum it attracts people who want to validate their self-worth by proving others wrong. You are implying by proxy that notable scientists such as Penrose are wrong as well, and yourself and other commentators attack my argument, which may be weak, I never implied it wasn’t fuzzy. when the similar statement has been made by much greater minds than what frequent PH.

Again it was an open discussion, people can choose to participate and there has been some good discussions,unfortunately not by yourself though..

Yes, that's an issue here.

[Kenny Powers]

The real mind fk is that increasing disorder - entropy - has led to apparently ordered atomic machinery capable of contemplating itself.

WTF.

[Peter3442]

"such is the respect paid to science that the most absurd opinions may become current provided they are expressed in language the sound of which recalls some well known scientific phrase"

- James Clerk Maxwell

[Gandahar]

Halb said:

Thesprucegoose said:

i think the problem on a forum it attracts people who want to validate their self-worth by proving others wrong. You are implying by proxy that notable scientists such as Penrose are wrong as well, and yourself and other commentators attack my argument, which may be weak, I never implied it wasn’t fuzzy. when the similar statement has been made by much greater minds than what frequent PH.

Again it was an open discussion, people can choose to participate and there has been some good discussions,unfortunately not by yourself though..

Yes, that's an issue here.

Let me put the counter point though.

In the original post

"The brain we have is similar to other animals, yet the defining characteristics of consciousness cannot be fully understood. The theory is that the interaction in the mind taps into the quantum realm, and we have broken the natural system and now think at a level never found before in nature."

And then when asked to post a paper showing this the original poster linked to

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=1...

which was a paper on monkeys not humans.

And from that point the original poster has still failed to prove that the human mind can effect quantum experiments.

It's wishy washy philosophy at best.

That's science for you, even at our level, if you start making claims then other people will question those claims if you cannot back them up....

[wisbech]

The physicist Pascual Jordan, who worked with quantum guru Niels Bohr in Copenhagen in the 1920s, put it like this: "observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position." In other words, Jordan said, "we ourselves produce the results of measurements."

Couple of things. (1) the 'we' doesn't have to be a consciousness, it can be a machine. And (2) - a measurement of course impacts what it is measuring. At macro levels, this makes no difference (shining a light at a ball, or a radar pulse at a ship doesn't impact them) But at very small scales, the energy pulse that you need to measure something will have a major impact on the subject - you can know a subjects position or energy, but not both.

Personally, I don't think we have free will. The evidence shows we make decisions automatically, and then post hoc rationalise them. (experiments show that, for example, even 'conscious' body movements are triggered before a person decides to take them)

[Gandahar]

Let's look at this from an Einstein perspective, he said

"God does not play dice with the Universe"

He was wrong.

According to this thread humans can though in the world of quantum mechanics. And win. or lose, depending on what they want. That's what the first post claims.

Human minds effecting quantum mechanical experiments is still not shown at all after all these pages. How does it for a start, what is the mechanism?

And how do you prove that human mechanism has worked? You need a base test, but the base test, non human, detector also affects the results ....

[Kent Border Kenny]

Thesprucegoose said:

quantum entanglement and superposition for example.

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Tuesday 3rd December 23:10

Edited by Thesprucegoose on Tuesday 3rd December 23:16

Quoting has gone strange, but please don’t assume that because someone questions something they don’t understand it.

I was a physicist once, and worked with quantum mechanics every day. Hopefully you were too, as otherwise it’d be ridiculous for you to try to lecture others, so rather than write in vague ideas, what are you actually trying to say, in detail?

[Kent Border Kenny]

Thesprucegoose said:

Yes but the principle is the fact the observation was created by humans, this doesn't happen in nature, whether the person or machine is monitoring it is pretty much the same result.
Mathematics doesn't have answers for everything as there are loads of things that cannot be easily defined.

The problem is the question crosses the line between scientific and philosophy and caused a lot of friction.

This is simply incorrect. Decoherence occurrs if there is any interaction that would allow an observation to be made, it is absolutely independent of any human being involved.