Who has represented himself as a purely mentalist interpreter? — Mww
Your mode of conversation is: anything goes in; the same thing comes out. — Kenosha Kid
But glad this one nailed it for you. — Kenosha Kid
All my examples demonstrated the same thing. — Kenosha Kid
I wonder though, did Wigner actually come right and declare explicitly that consciousness causes collapse, or did somebody take his “....consciousness is necessary for the completion of any quantum experiment...” and translate it thus. — Mww
Even von Neumann stated the wavefunction collapse can happen anywhere on the chain from measuring device to “subjective perception”, but subjective perception is not necessarily consciousness, but only a partial constituency of it. And happening at, is not the same as causality for. — Mww
You don't actually care to help others understand, rather you use someone's ignorance to justify being an asshole. — khaled
Sounds like consciousness is deeply involved to me. QM attempts to describe reality. The equipment and the human observer are all part of reality. What the experiment attempts to show is what electrons behave like at the quantum level. The equipment and human observer are composed of electrons. So, any conclusion that you reach as a result of the experiment would apply to your human body and the equipment, including the film.None of this impacts the particular thought experiment described. QM is a statistical theory. If there is a possibility of getting stripes instead of boobies, then as you repeat the experiment you ought to get stripes some of the time. Claiming the film is in superposition until observed is experimentally falsifiable. — Kenosha Kid
You haven't because in order to do so, you'd have to define consciousness. If my claim is that consciousness is a measuring device, then how do we know that some other measuring device isn't conscious as well? If consciousness is simply a processing of information in memory, then "mechanical" (your term that I questioned your use of and which you have not clarified, not mine) devices qualify as conscious.I have never disputed that a conscious observation can or would collapse a wavefunction. The claim was that consciousness is essential for wavefunction collapse. This is what I hope I have demonstrated is false. — Kenosha Kid
No, I mean that there is no falsifiable theory, which basically means that there is no scientific theory of consciousness, only philosophical ones.There is no scientific theory of consciousness? Are you absolutely sure about that? Do you not instead mean there is no complete theory? That is true, and my wording reflected that. — Kenosha Kid
The mind does directly affect the world, and the world directly affects the mind. The experiment started off as an idea in some mind. The experiment is designed in such a way that produces results observable for human sensory organs. So for KK to claim that consciousness isn't involved is utter nonsense.You are talking about the mind interpreting the world. Mentalist interpretations of QM imply the mind directly affecting the world, e.g. reaching out and collapsing the wavefunction. — SophistiCat
Sounds like consciousness is deeply involved to me. — Harry Hindu
So, any conclusion that you reach as a result of the experiment would apply to your human body and the equipment, including the film. — Harry Hindu
If consciousness is simply a processing of information in memory, then "mechanical" (your term that I questioned your use of and which you have not clarified, not mine) devices qualify as conscious. — Harry Hindu
No, I mean that there is no falsifiable theory — Harry Hindu
With all that, beginning with that double-damned double slit, it’s easy to see where human consciousness could be deemed responsible for the actions outside itself. Leave it to a human, to attribute that of which he has precious little understanding, as being responsible for that of which he has, arguably, only slightly more. — Mww
to make a law of ignorance. — Kenosha Kid
Do ideas think? Are ideas mental? Conclusion: Both ideas and material objects show no clear signs of thought. Whether or not something has thoughts is irrelevent to whether or not that things is an idea or a material object, since thoughtlessness can apply to either.And that's just brains. There's toasters, rope, jelly, shoes, trees, water, air, chinken nungents, mud, sand, oil, car keys, bedsheets, cups, and so on, all material things that show no evidence of thought, that we would be astonished to discover had thoughts. And no evidence of thoughts without some material foundation. — Kenosha Kid
I had edited my original post quite a bit. I tried to explain that correspondance between mental activity and material activity does not in itself prove either one to be the foundation of the other.And no evidence of thoughts without some material foundation. — Kenosha Kid
Then that is your problem because you keep using referring to mental properties when describing the experiment, as I pointed out. So maybe the problem isn't a misunderstanding of QM, but of language-use? Maybe it's a problem with how scientists are using words as well because they talk about photons knowing that they are being observed.Sounds like consciousness is deeply involved to me.
— Harry Hindu
And yet the experiment proves it is not. — Kenosha Kid
Then I have no idea what you are trying to say by bringing up this experiment in a thread about the fundamental nature of reality. What is it that you are trying to show if not some understanding about the fundamental nature of reality?Beyond the broad gist that is unscientific, I have no idea what you're trying to say. — Kenosha Kid
If consciousness can never be deemed responsible for the actions outside itself, then how is that these scribbles appeared on this screen, or are you saying that the scribbles on this screen are part of your consciousness and not outside of it? How did your intent to say this result in these scribbled appearing on this screen if human consciousness isn't responsible for the actions outside of itself - like you typing a post and the post appearing on my computer screen?With all that, beginning with that double-damned double slit, it’s easy to see where human consciousness could be deemed responsible for the actions outside itself. Leave it to a human, to attribute that of which he has precious little understanding, as being responsible for that of which he has, arguably, only slightly more. — Mww
Is the implication that "brain activity" is what generates the mind? — Yohan
Then that is your problem because you keep using referring to mental properties when describing the experiment, as I pointed out. — Harry Hindu
Then I have no idea what you are trying to say by bringing up this experiment in a thread about the fundamental nature of reality. — Harry Hindu
How are they my scribbles if you're rejecting that I had something to do with causing their existence? I'll be happy to discuss this stuff with you when you think about what you say before typing it and submitting it. What is being discussed is Mind, Matter and Dualism. If you dont include Mind in your explanation then you're explanation is missing what is being discussed.Oh, dear. Harry, please consider this: cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
You and your scribbles. Do you have any idea how BOOOORRRRING that is?!?!
Anyway, I’ll be happy to discuss this stuff with you, as soon as you see the point actually being discussed. — Mww
I already showed that the experiment is dependent upon it being conceived in a mind before its assembled with "mechanical" devices that produce results for conscious beings to observe. How does a conception become an experiment that isn't dependent upon the conception? How does a non-mechanical idea become a mechanistic experiment?An experiment that does not demonstrate a dependence on consciousness where it is claimed there should be one. — Kenosha Kid
I already showed that the experiment is dependent upon it being conceived in a mind before its assembled with "mechanical" devices that produce results for conscious beings to observe. How does a conception become an experiment that isn't dependent upon the conception? How does a non-mechanical idea become a mechanistic experiment? — Harry Hindu
I guess it depends on what we mean by "dependent" and which scientific theory of consciousness is being used to show that the system isn't dependent on consciousness, right? So the design if the experiment is dependent on consciousness, but the results of the experiment arent?The experiment above still distinguishes between such systems that demonstrate consciousness-dependence and those that don't. — Kenosha Kid
So the design if the experiment is dependent on consciousness, but the results of the experiment arent? — Harry Hindu
It seems to me that you'd need a proper definition of consciousness to make such an assertion. What it is about consciousness that collapses some wavefunctions and not others?I don't protest the claim that consciousness can collapse wavefunctions, only the claim that consciousness is the only thing that collapses wavefunctions. — Kenosha Kid
If I intended to appear astonished, I would have added an exclamation point as well as the question mark at the end. I was merely asking for clarification of your prior claims.You word the above like the idea is astonishing. But it's extremely mundane and everyday. — Kenosha Kid
My point is that the way the world, which includes some experiment, appears is dependent upon some state of consciousness and your visual system. How do you know that what you experience when looking at the results of some experiment is a product of only the results of the experiment and not about the state of your visual system and mental state as well when doctors use your report of the contents of your conscious experiences to get at the state of your visual system and not at the paper with letters on the wall? How much of the shape on the film is a product of the experiment vs a product of your consciousness?If I drop a pebble into the river from the bridge, I know I'm responsible for the result. I don't need to renew my responsibility to ensure that result. That the pebble splashes into the water is an inevitable consequence of me dropping it, not of my observing it thereafter. Likewise the boobies pattern is an inevitable consequence of me forcing the electrons to scatter in an in principle discernible way, not of my actually discerning it. It is thus the measurement apparatus, not the knowledge of the measurement, that is crucial. And this is the Copenhagen interpretation. Which is all I was saying. — Kenosha Kid
And in Christian Science only God and mind have ultimate reality. Calling something a science doesn't necessarily make it one. And a "scientific" discipline can have an admixtur of actually rational guidelines mixed with unfounded assumptions or dogma, which I would say is possibly the case with most materialism-based scientific traditions. Idealogy seems to form when masses of people get together with a common vision, even if they all genrally share values like objectivity...so it seems to me. Maybe its part of human tribalistic nature...sorry for small tangent.In neuroscience, brain function is mind. — Kenosha Kid
So neuroscientists have demonstrated that there is not only correspondance but causation between mental and brain activity? How can one ever prove that corresponce is not only correspondance, but that one actually is the cause of the other? Further, you said before that to neuroscience brain activity is mind activity. If brain activity IS mind activity, then there is no causation between one or the other, rather there is no separation between the two in the first place. If one can cause the other, then there are two things. But I don't think an idealist has to disprove any neuroscience findings, he just has to show that materiality is an idea.1. If you wish to claim that a mental activity that corresponds to a brain activity is not causally linked, one has to reproduce the success of neuroscience at explaining such correlations without the benefit using what is apparently to neuroscientists accurate, predictive and obvious. It's a difficult position to be in. — Kenosha Kid
Here is a simple argument why I think, if monism is the case, mind is the fundamental rather than the material world.2. Otherwise one ends up in a turf war that dualism can only lose. You might accept that yes that brain activity does indeed describe a particular mental activity, but that's -not all that mind is-. As neuroscience explains more and more, this separable dualistic component must necessarily retreat, else resort to (1) above. — Kenosha Kid
Here is a simple argument why I think, if monism is the case, mind is the fundamental rather than the material world.
You can't locate consciousenss in the material world. But you can locate the appearance of the material world within consciousness. — Yohan
Say you are talking to Jim. Jim has access to his awareness, thoughts, feelings, etc. He knows what it is like to exist as himself from his first person experience. — Yohan
Which side of Jim is more essential? — Yohan
You can't locate consciousenss in the material world. (...)....— Yohan
Well, you can. So... — Kenosha Kid
Then why have a mind at all if all we need are brains and their functions?Brain function is clearly not more fundamental than brain. For brain function, you need a brain. The opposite is not true. — Kenosha Kid
Does consciousness collapse wave functions or do brains collapse wave functions? And what is it about consciousness that allows it to collapse wave functions like "mechanucal" devices do?I don't protest the claim that consciousness can collapse wavefunctions, only the claim that consciousness is the only thing that collapses wavefunctions. — Kenosha Kid
Then why have a mind at all if all we need are brains and their functions? — Harry Hindu
Otherwise one ends up in a turf war that dualism can only lose. You might accept that yes that brain activity does indeed describe a particular mental activity, but that's -not all that mind is-. As neuroscience explains more and more, this separable dualistic component must necessarily retreat, else resort to (1) above. — Kenosha Kid
Its not from a dualist perspective. I'm a monist, but not a physicalist or idealist. The point was why is there a difference in appearances of mind vs brain in the first place.That's a purely dualistic question: from a physicalist point if view, we do not have brain function *and* mind; they're the same thing. But from that dualistic perspective, it's a fine question. — Kenosha Kid
I don't protest the claim that consciousness can collapse wavefunctions, only the claim that consciousness is the only thing that collapses wavefunctions.
— Kenosha Kid
Does consciousness collapse wave functions or do brains collapse wave functions? And what is it about consciousness that allows it to collapse wave functions like "mechanical" devices do? — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.