Looks like you have an idea but are under the illusion it can make sense to others. — I like sushi
Do you think this is a version of panpsychism? — Wayfarer
That's nonsense. Non-sense; without meaning. — Banno
If you read this and didn't flinch, you haven't adopted the critical approach that is the essence of rationality. — Banno
Can you reiterate the OP in plain English and/or expand on the terminology used and its context — I like sushi
In the case of science, one piece of the medallion is nonphysical (mathematical models) and the other piece is physical (empirical observation). — TheMadFool
Again note, that this is assuming same physical configuration = same Qualia. Which you have no reason for believing either. — khaled
...this would mean that ethically speaking, any genocide would be the same as breaking stones. — SolarWind
One could seriously maintain that the torture victim is in fact not suffering at all, as even if he/she had been suffering, that wouldn't lead to them screaming, it wouldn't lead to anything. For all we know they love the torture! Let's give em more! — khaled
A lot of "may" and "perhaps". — khaled
The body is too big to be treated as a quantum system. — khaled
Do you think that some physical effects are not caused sufficiently by physical causes? Because it's that or epiphenomenalism. And I think both are wrong. Or is there some alternative I'm not thinking of here? — khaled
To my knowledge brain states are generally construed to be patterns in the neural network. — TheMadFool
Then you seem to say that because these material interactions are everywhere, then perception is everywhere - 'suffused'. But that doesn't follow. It's like saying your post is made of words and my post is made of words, so your post is the same as my post. — Cuthbert
You still have not clearly explained the problem. Tell us exactly what x, y, t, d, and z represent. It sounds a bit like the old bee vs train problem where the bee keeps going back and forth at a constant rate between the moving train and the wall at the end of the track. That has a simple resolution. — jgill
I find it odd that some people belive that they have a distinct soul and spirit seperate to the body. — Brock Harding
"The square of the wave function, Ψ^2, however, does have physical significance: the probability of finding the particle described by a specific wave function Ψ at a given point and time is proportional to the value of Ψ^2." (Britannica) — jgill
My point is just that we need different empirical accounts to explain different phenomena. A quantum account of consciousness wouldn’t be ‘wrong’, but I don’t think it would address what psychologists need it to in their approach to consciousness. — Joshs
My impression is that for most psychologists a
quantum theory of consciousness would be almost useless. The most promising theories of consciousness deal with such issues as empathy, affectivity and self-awareness These make uses of an intentional account of motivation, not a physically causal one. — Joshs
As you have a mind you have a soul or spirit. — Brock Harding
are you referring to an objective collapse theory? — Andrew M
...per the probabilities predicted by QM... — Andrew M
I think the question of the nature of the wave-function is a metaphysical question, or even THE metaphysical question implied by modern physics. A lot of the controversies revolve around that point. — Wayfarer
I doubt that the conscious Mind is literally an electro-magnetic field. If it was, we could easily learn how to read minds, just as we tune our radios to E-M frequencies. Energy fields can only be detected by their effects on matter; the field itself is invisible and intangible. — Gnomon
But I can say in answer to your question: I care. — James Riley
I can't really know or figure out what's going to happen after I die. — James Riley
"The world is one substance. As satisfying as this discovery may be to philosophers, it is profoundly distressing to physicists as long as they do not understand the nature of that substance. For if quantumstuff is all there is and you don't understand quantumstuff, your ignorance is complete." (Nick Herbert - Quantum Reality: BEYOND THE NEW PHYSICS) — spirit-salamander
Scientific study of consciousness has only recently begun to gain acceptance as a legitimate scientific discipline, and some think field theories like McFadden's are unscientific beliefs that threaten their hard-won legitimacy. — Gnomon
There is no conceptual logic that I can see which would prevent two types of stuff bouncing off each other for all eternity. Please explain it if one does exist. — Gary Enfield
I'll investigate but my filter for the extraordinary claims all too often made by misusing quantum phenomena outside of fundamental physics consist of works likes those of the late, eminent, particle physicist and philosopher Victor Stenger, particularly his book The Unconscious Quantum reviewed here. I'm quite skeptical as it is of the terms like "entanglement" and "superposition", "energy fields" and "non-locality" that you're using — 180 Proof