Could consciousness be ever considered a force

pacquiao

What do you think?

Cookie_Monster

Without see a detailed reason behind why you think it could, no, not in the traditional sense of gravity and magnatism etc.

Capt'n Midnight

short answer NO

force=mass x acceleration ( in science anyway )

Newton's laws and all that

During the world cup 3.2 billion people watched on TV, and no one noticed if any of the balls moved - any theory of the human mind being able to provide any telekenetic force has to account for that.

also means experiments would be hard to do since you may need large amounts of people

you can control images on a computer monitor if you wear an EEG helmet and all the software is setup, it's just measuring the electrical resistance on you head . it's not a force and the effects mostly cancel out so you can't use your brain to use that slight potential difference to do stuff, static electricity in you hair would cause much more force in other objects,


we are able to detect neutrinos which have almost no interaction with matter, we can detect changes in the motion of spacecraft which are far more subtle than the pressure of sunlight, we can theorise forces and predict their effects ,

f=ma can have strange effects, if you simplify what happens to electrons in crystals to be able to use it then at certain position the electrons behave as if they have an effective mass that is negative. As in less than zero :eek:

thecornflake

pacquiao wrote: »

What do you think?

I think cats are funny, but I'd never get one. I'm more of a potato person.

I also think this answers your question as much as your question makes sense.

krd

thecornflake wrote: »

I think cats are funny, but I'd never get one. I'm more of a potato person.

I also think this answers your question as much as your question makes sense.

No. But it might give you an idea how people think.

You've heard of Rhonda Bryne's The Secret? A book that has sold tens of millions of copies world wide. Has been given credulous attention through all ends of the media.

Do you know what Rhonda's claim is? She claims because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle the universe is controlled by human thoughts. Positive thoughts make positive things happen and negative thoughts make negative things happen. That's the secret. Project your thoughts into the universe and the universe will return stuff to you. It's quantum physics, as she claims.

You know, it's not just Rhonda believes this sh1te. Millions upon millions of other people do too. In fact, people who don't believe this crap are in a hunted minority. Billions of people believe, that if you say a magic poem to a space alien (no one has ever seen), that space alien will return good stuff to you.

Basically, most of the worlds population are not much brighter than cats or potatoes.

They are stupid. They believe that scientists create science through some form of subjective will. They believe perception is reality. And all they, or anyone else needs to do to change reality is change how they perceive it.

And it doesn't matter what you say, or what you show them. The potato heads are still going to believe they can project their thoughts - or better that they can read minds. The average potato head thinks they can see into the minds of others - they don't even realise that asymmetric insight (also called the illusion of asymmetric insight.) is just a faculty of the mind. Cats probably have it too. Cats probably think their owners dream of catching mice, and eating fish flavoured nibbles.

Rhonda Bryne should have been run out of town. Instead, she was given massive media exposure.

thecornflake

krd wrote: »

No. But it might give you an idea how people think.

You've heard of Rhonda Bryne's The Secret? A book that has sold tens of millions of copies world wide. Has been given credulous attention through all ends of the media.

Do you know what Rhonda's claim is? She claims because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle the universe is controlled by human thoughts. Positive thoughts make positive things happen and negative thoughts make negative things happen. That's the secret. Project your thoughts into the universe and the universe will return stuff to you. It's quantum physics, as she claims.

You know, it's not just Rhonda believes this sh1te. Millions upon millions of other people do too. In fact, people who don't believe this crap are in a hunted minority. Billions of people believe, that if you say a magic poem to a space alien (no one has ever seen), that space alien will return good stuff to you.

Basically, most of the worlds population are not much brighter than cats or potatoes.

They are stupid. They believe that scientists create science through some form of subjective will. They believe perception is reality. And all they, or anyone else needs to do to change reality is change how they perceive it.

And it doesn't matter what you say, or what you show them. The potato heads are still going to believe they can project their thoughts - or better that they can read minds. The average potato head thinks they can see into the minds of others - they don't even realise that asymmetric insight (also called the illusion of asymmetric insight.) is just a faculty of the mind. Cats probably have it too. Cats probably think their owners dream of catching mice, and eating fish flavoured nibbles.

Rhonda Bryne should have been run out of town. Instead, she was given massive media exposure.

I have no problem in people thinking all the above crap, it just means that actual scientists are more valuable to the human race if most people believe that stuff.

It's a bit sad to see people who have no clue whatsoever about physics talking crap like they're an expert in the field. People need to see that its not just a collection of random stuff that scientists put together to sound weird and complex, it is in fact the truth.

I do however respect some of these crackpots in a way. Think about it, they are either extremely stupid or extremely smart. I say this as they could be very intelligent and spout all this crap because they know people will believe them and thus they will make a load of cash out of it. On the other hand if they really do believe what they are talking about then obviously they need a kick into reality.
Its kind of like Jedward, at the beginning I thought that they were either very dumb or very smart, seeing a place in the market to exploit a load of fools who pay to see them do and talk stupid stuff on stage is a fantastically easy way to get rich. However they could also have been very dumb and believed that they were awesome. Its a bit sad that it turns out they are actually clowns, would have been funny to see smart people doing something like that to exploit the other gobshiiites out there.

krd

thecornflake wrote: »

I do however respect some of these crackpots in a way. Think about it, they are either extremely stupid or extremely smart. I say this as they could be very intelligent and spout all this crap because they know people will believe them and thus they will make a load of cash out of it. On the other hand if they really do believe what they are talking about then obviously they need a kick into reality.

Well, some of those ideas have a way of filtering into to peoples general understanding of the world. If someone presents themselves as a scientist, and no one calls them out on it. People can be misled. It's like the old trick of getting actors who played doctors in American television shows to advertise medicines on TV.

And people can end up dying. A woman I knew was diagnosed with cancer - instead of starting treatment, she chose to treat herself with homoeopathic remedies.

I was actually speaking to a homoeopathic "medicines" manufacturer recently. Their latest wheeze. They've gone all quantum physics on it. He said the homoeopathic remedy is prepared by a machine projecting the electro-magnetic resonant frequencies of the original ingredient into the water. Very 21st century.

But I could go on. There is so much we take for granted, and let wash over our heads that is complete bunk. 5 a day, servings of vegetables, completely plucked out of the air. Breakfast the most important meal of the day - sounds like an advertising slogan, because it is. I was advised by a doctor one time, to try alternative remedies - and I advised them to try prescribing me proper ****ing medicines. Actually that doctor - real medical doctor - was working out of a clinic that had a colon irrigation specialist - they did coffee enemas.

William Shockley, Nobel prize winner physics and someone who made a massive contribution to electronics, was also a crank, who expounded on subjects he had no expertise in. I believe he was single handedly responsible for starting the vitamin supplement fad, and he had some ripe ideas on biology and race. The media took him seriously on those subjects because he had the Nobel.

tommy2bad

It might not be as dumb a question as it first seems though.
Lets play a game, any game, for us to play we have to move and move with propose. i.e. our consciousness is directing the motion. Indirectly through our bodies but in the brain directly through synapses and....er things.
If consciousness is not a force then how dose it exert force?
Or is it just a collection of information that uses electro chemical reactions to cause action?
Are we back to how again? Unless we only react to stimuli and consciousness is an illusion.

doctoremma

Neural transduction is electric in nature. Moving charges make a magnetic field.

If you could amplify the magnetic field created by your electric neurons, could you not move stuff?

Capt'n Midnight

doctoremma wrote: »

Neural transduction is electric in nature. Moving charges make a magnetic field.

If you could amplify the magnetic field created by your electric neurons, could you not move stuff?

For about $900 you can get a cap with electrodes that can amplify those signals and 'move' stuff on a computer screen.

[edit]http://www.gamesradar.com/mindwave-a-99-brainwave-sensor-now-on-sale/ cheapo 99.95 one - not a recomendation , just to show the price of EEG technology will drop [/edit]

They work.


The energy involved is tiny, you need very sensitive detectors. And your brain still needs to work which limits the range of thoughts you can have.


On the other hand if you got a belt off an electric eel your muscle spasm would probably send you clean across the room.

Morbert

pacquiao wrote: »

What do you think?

Not if you are a materialist.

Zombrex

pacquiao wrote: »

What do you think?

Ah English.

Consciousness is a "force" in the way hunger is a force. When I am hungry the hunger forces me to get up and go get some food even though I'm nearly finished my Civ 4 game (by nearly finished I mean I've only got 6 hours left).

It is not a force in the physical sense, the sense that the sciences are concerned with. But as has been pointed out people often think of these terms (force, energy, power) in much more lay man terms (ie the power of love!). Technically since all these words were borrowed by science there is nothing all that wrong with this, only when people start confusing to the two realms. Love is not an actual physical force, the hopes of a child is not actually the most powerful energy in the universe, consciousness doesn't really bind us all together in a physical sense.

I can't remember which scientist said it on an episode of Horizon that I also can't remember, but he pointed out that the English language, or even human language in general, was not designed to explain scientific concepts. It has been co-opted for this purpose in science, and often if fails miserably. He was saying this in the context of explaining the Big Bang, there is no word to describe what that idea as it is is actually understood by science (it certainly wasn't a bang). You can see this over something as simple as what "nothing" means.

Often the only way to have a concept explained properly is through the mathematics, a system much better suited to explaining these concepts.

krd

Zombrex wrote: »

Often the only way to have a concept explained properly is through the mathematics, a system much better suited to explaining these concepts.

Yes....but.....

You can see this over something as simple as what "nothing" means.

It took the mathematicians of some cultures a long time to get around to nothing - or having number systems with zero.

You know what the most annoying thing about the Arabic number system is (our 1234567) It's written left to right - instead of the way we write which is right to left. It sounds counter intuitive, because we're so used to it, but it makes calculations much easier. But, it's a lot better than long dividing with Roman numerals.

Mathematicians are so big on the beauty and the perfection of their language. But then how come so few people can speak it. Or...maybe they are just being pricks.

Capt'n Midnight

krd wrote: »

You know what the most annoying thing about the Arabic number system is (our 1234567) It's written left to right - instead of the way we write which is right to left. It sounds counter intuitive, because we're so used to it, but it makes calculations much easier.

Big endian vs. little endian :pac:

pro's and cons.



English isn't so good at some concepts
Maths/ scientific equations can be far better
no human can draw a circle as perfect as x squared + y squared = 1


I don't think conciousness could be a force since we don't know how our brains / bodies work. You send your body a signal to move a finger, but in between that the brain is controlling the rest of the body - if it stops doing this you fall down and stop breathing. ( Oddly enough your stomach has quite a lot of nerves. )

Point is that even if your conciousness was a force it would almost certainly be overwhelmed by the unconscious activity of the brain.

krd

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

English isn't so good at some concepts

Maths/ scientific equations can be far better

But maths is just a formalised language. It's a sub-set of spoken languages like English.

There's nothing than can be expressed in maths than cannot be expressed in English. And in the instance where you can operate the maths but not explain in English what is happening, then you don't understand what's happening. You could be deeply mistaken that you do understand it by getting the correct answers.

This is driving me up the wall. I'm trying to learn new maths and stuff recently. Wikipedia I've learned can be a really bad source.

no human can draw a circle as perfect as x squared + y squared = 1

A human doing maths and a computer doing maths are two very different things.

I'm reading Douglas Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach. He gives an example of a letter puzzle. You're limited to a set of rules but you can take as many steps as you like. In certain instances the puzzle is unsolvable. And a human may recognise this quickly, not through trial and error, they'll just spot the logic in the rules. Whereas the computer will hack away at it for eternity - it will be faster and more accurate than a human.

It's not inconceivable you couldn't get a computer to spot the logic - but you'd have to program it with new rules. The other option would be to allow it to think fuzzy like a human. Which there is a maths to. But it's so complex you wouldn't be able state it in a neat formalised form.

Also, indeterminacy is a feature of nature. There are no perfect circles.

Morbert

krd wrote: »

In certain instances the puzzle is unsolvable. And a human may recognise this quickly, not through trial and error, they'll just spot the logic in the rules.

krd can never know that this statement is consistently true.

krd

Morbert wrote: »

krd can never know that this statement is consistently true.

It's consistently true in the instances that it is consistently true.

Morbert

krd wrote: »

It's consistently true in the instances that it is consistently true.

That's a tautology (at best).

The statement is consistently true. I can see it obviously, and so can everyone else on this forum. But you, being a biological computer, can never see that it is consistently true.