Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ghosts/Apparitions/Spirits etc

123457»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 100 ✭✭IRWolfie-


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I am in the camp of the quantum brain brigade as IR Wolfie calls them. I believe that consciousness is the interface between the observed system and the observing system. Evidence for this theory for me is that conscious intentions (thought) can effect the activities of the brain, in fact even result in "rewiring" of the brain. This to me is a result of consciousness being an interface between observer and observed.

    First you claim it's a philosophical interpretation of QM, now you say you have evidence. Sounds like you are in fact saying it's a scientific hypothesis now. Which is it?

    Also, "conscious intentions (thought) can effect the activities of the brain" is self evident since conciousness is a form of brain activity. It doesn't need QM.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    IRWolfie- wrote: »
    First you claim it's a philosophical interpretation of QM, now you say you have evidence. Sounds like you are in fact saying it's a scientific hypothesis now. Which is it?

    Also, "conscious intentions (thought) can effect the activities of the brain" is self evident since conciousness is a form of brain activity. It doesn't need QM.

    I'm surprised you cannot follow, so apologies for not being more clear.

    Yes, it is a hypothesis to try and explain how mind and matter interact.
    It is based on an interpretation of QM, the extreme Copenhagen Interpretation or von Neumann interpretation. I am fully aware that the idea of a conscious observer causing wave function collapse is currently out of favor in terms of QM interpretations. However, when I consider the various double slit experiments, in particular the delayed choice experiment, I don't know how we can exclude it. I would argue the appropriate statement is we don't know whether consciousness creates the observed universe or the observed universe creates consciousness.

    I have already explained that every interpretation of QM has a physics aspect and a philosophy aspect. One can choose to ignore the philosophical aspect which I think is what you are suggesting. What I am proposing is a philosophical interpretation of QM that leads to a hypothesis for what role our minds play in our observed universe. The latter is based on observed evidence not philosophy.

    If we think our consciousness is solely a form of brain activity or an epiphenomenon of the brain, then in my opinion we should have no control over it. The mind-brain problem or the link between the mental and physical is a real mystery, so at this point anything we say is highly speculative. I have no problem accepting that what I am proposing is a speculative hypothesis. However, it is based on evidence. If consciousness is epiphenomenal and only based on physical processes in the brain, we only have an illusion of control. In other words, my thoughts did not cause anything to happen, they only observe what happens.

    How then can we explain neuroplasticity? By willfully controlling our thoughts, we can cause physical changes in our brains. This makes zero sense from a "consciousnes is epiphenomenal" standpoint.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    You obviously neither have a clue about the science of quantum mechanics nor its interpretations.

    I know what you think the "implications" of the theory are, and I also know that you weren't able to support any of that when pressed, and instead just stated it was your speculation. Which is what you always do when pressed on the details.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    I have no interest in trying to educate you on either, as I don't have the time on my hands and frankly I don't think you would ever get it. Try and educate yourself though.. and maybe go for a walk and relieve the angry athiest.

    You don't have anything to support your speculation. So please stop putting it forward as if it is some sort of scientific reality when it is instead just the wishful thinking of some fringe scientists who really really really hope that there is something paranormal and psychic here when there most likely isn't.

    I'm sorry if reality is too boring for you, I'm sorry if the plan old brain that can't see through walls or read other people's minds using quantum entanglement is just not interesting enough for you. Personally I think there is plenty to find interesting about the human brain and our evolved abilities without the need to invent things in order for it to be interesting.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I'm sorry if reality is too boring for you, I'm sorry if the plan old brain that can't see through walls or read other people's minds using quantum entanglement is just not interesting enough for you. Personally I think there is plenty to find interesting about the human brain and our evolved abilities without the need to invent things in order for it to be interesting.

    Trust me, my reality is not boring at all..

    It is because the "plain old brain" idea is false that we are having this discussion, and the reason why humans are not still gathering nuts and berries.


Advertisement