As a parallel investigation, 20th and 21st century physics have come to rely on the concept of a field: matter is not fundamentally solid and stable, but rather a vast array of ripples or disturbances in a sort of fluid medium characterized by perpetual motion, with relatively persistent focal points of these perturbations being what we observe and model in the form of particles. — Enrique
Competing interpretations of quantum mechanics have been proposed which fit the math equally well, though experiments are beginning to achieve the capacity to adjudicate between them. — Enrique
I has been my understanding that different interpretations of quantum mechanics cannot be differentiated using empirical methods. If you have information otherwise, I would be interested in seeing it. — T Clark
This space-wave theory of the structure of physical reality might be genius, merely eccentric, or possibly crackpot. It's based on a mathematical reinterpretation of quantum theory – by Geoff Haselhurst et al -- proposing A> the Wave Structure of Matter, and B> that the “fluid medium” for those waves is the Aristotelian Substance we call “Space”. — Gnomon
I'd specifically like to know how Consciousness could arise from wave interactions in fluid space. — Gnomon
Of the many observations and manipulations of the brain that we can explain, we cannot tell you what part of the brain controls consciousness — Rocco Rosano
Yes. The Nobel Laureate you mentioned might be Frank Wilczek, whose 2008 book, The Lightness of Being, introduced the notion of space as a super-conductor. That's way above my pay grade, but the general concept of Space as an Aether Field makes some sense to me, especially as it dovetails with some of the woo-woo implications of quantum theory.When you get into phenomenology of physics the vast possibility is hard to get a grip on and concepts haven't progressed far at this point. I read a book by a Nobel laureate who imagined aether as a multicolored, multilayered superconductor, with electromagnetic matter an impurity in the aether. — Enrique
It's that binding force that I have difficulty understanding. Philosophically, I can see how energy (physical causation) could be related to human intention (cultural causation). But the mechanics of that transformation from physics to percepts are beyond my comprehension. Perhaps it's like a physical Phase Change (e.g. liquid water to solid ice), in which the intermediate steps are blurry. It seems to be merely a re-arrangement of links between atoms. But what magic makes that new pattern of inter-connection emerge into consciousness as a Percept or Concept? I can only guess that the Potential for Perception is inherent in the direction of causation : a metaphor for Aboutness. :smile:to bind matter into a percept — Enrique
It's that binding force that I have difficulty understanding. Philosophically, I can see how energy (physical causation) could be related to human intention (cultural causation). But the mechanics of that transformation from physics to percepts are beyond my comprehension. — Gnomon
You can't come from the perspective of an observer and analyze what consciousness is unless you make the bold, glaring, and stupid assumption that your awareness is adept at that. — neonspectraltoast
Yes. That is generally how I see the relationship between physical structure and mental logic. But it's the steps in-between Energy and Intention that are still hard to imagine. There is still a gaping gap between quantum mechanics and spooky mysticism*1. That's why my own theory of EnFormAction requires an intentional First Cause to set Nature on a course from Material Mechanics to Mental Motives*2.Awareness is simply an emergent byproduct of this energy field's organization. — Enrique
Conscious states have bread bases. — Bartricks
That is generally how I see the relationship between physical structure and mental logic. But it's the steps in-between Energy and Intention that are still hard to imagine. There is still a gaping gap between quantum mechanics and spooky mysticism — Gnomon
Coherence is an essential quality of any holistic system. Yet, the mysterious integrating "force" that binds isolated parts into a functional system has always seemed ineffable. Is it a measurable physical force, or an immensurable metaphysical influence?When you think about the complexity that must be present in a coherence field of macroscopic emergence it is hard to imagine. — Enrique
For those who wish to avoid pseudo-science traps and quantum woo sophistry, I recommend as a start The Unconscious Quantum (reviewed here).(a) The smallest neuronal structures in the human brain are both three orders of magnitude too large and too hot for quantum activity (e.g. superposition, entanglement, etc) to cohere. Thus, the human brain is an entirely classical processing system.
(b) Mind – phenomenal self-modeling (PSM) – is how sufficiently complex (e.g. human) brains reflexively interactive with their environments.
(c) "Consciousness", an entirely classical emergent phenomenon, is mind feeling itself mind-ing (e.g. updating its PSM).
The smallest neuronal structures in the human brain are both three orders of magnitude too large and too hot for quantum activity (e.g. superposition, entanglement, etc) to cohere. Thus, the human brain is an entirely classical processing system.
Even when you conscientiously try to stay on the empirical side of Consciousness -- "wish to avoid pseudo-science traps and quantum woo sophistry" -- you are treading on shaky ground. You may be subjected to ad hominem labeling of "quantum woo-woo speculations (e.g. pseudo-scientistic / idealst reductionism", from those who equate Holism & Idealism with New Age Mysticism.But if coherence field theory is accurate, all of this will prove amenable to empiricism, and it's simply a matter of investigating the binding and modulation that occurs among atoms and light. — Enrique
Once again, sir, you're barking at shadows of strawmen. Woof woof sophistry. :sparkle: :sweat:However, part of that hard-line Reductionist Realist stance seems to be the questionable assumption that our current understanding of Quantum physics is complete. It also presumes that there is a well-defined border between Empirical Science (observation) and Theoretical Science (conjecture). — Gnomon
How does your model handle the transfer of ideas? Something as simple as a short text seems to do the job and uses conventional, well understood means.
There might be a type of dualism involved, as no brain matter is transfered yet two brains can hold the same idea. Certainly ideas are not physical in the sense they are confined to a single brain. — Mark Nyquist
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.