U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-29-2021, 03:34 PM
 
Location: North Idaho
591 posts, read 180,078 times
Reputation: 895

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008 View Post
What kind tool and measurements display and prove the presence of the I ?
I'm no specialist in scanning technologies, but I'm pretty sure they have gotten pretty sophisticated. But even if such instruments can identify "thinking" in the brain, they're not going to be able to isolate particular thoughts of self consciousness (to my knowledge). So it seems an intractable problem with current technology. Perhaps some future revolutionary technology will give us a better handle on this question.

Come to think of it, though, scanning and identifying the "thinking" area of a dog's brain, surely it will be different from a human's. Still, it's a thinking, conscious dog. Not "self-conscious," we say, but does it have an "I", or something similar? We consider human intelligence to be the current apex on the planet. (After all, look what humans have done in the past 10,000 years (especially the last 100)). Nevertheless, there's a lot of specialized "intelligence" in the creatures around us.

But humans developed a decent sized frontal cortex, which apparently makes a difference. That's where your "I" is going to be.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-29-2021, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Southern California
1,237 posts, read 178,859 times
Reputation: 1465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heron31 View Post
You can't get any more anecdotal than that!
Yogananda was an avatar. They don't grow in trees.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2021, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Germany
13,735 posts, read 3,242,660 times
Reputation: 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
So where in the body is the 'I' which is experiencing everyday life then?
It is a process created by the brain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
Just because we can measure 'something' does not mean it is a part of consciousness we are measuring.
True, but in this case, the evidence is that it is consciousness we are measuring.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2021, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Germany
13,735 posts, read 3,242,660 times
Reputation: 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Humphrey View Post
The collapse of the wave function teases at the possibility of cosmic consciousness.

In the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, quantum events don't happen in any one specific way until you look at them. Prior to being observed, an event is a purely abstract probability wave describing every way it could happen. Each possible state is as real as all the others, but when you observe the event, the wave collapses and all outcomes except one vanish. The Cat is both alive and dead until you open the box.

If nothing happens at the quantum scale until someone looks, it suggests that observation must have been going on long before the universe evolved conscious creatures. It suggests that consciousness did not begin with the creatures that evolved in the universe, but rather, it was there from the very beginning. With no one to look, nothing could have gotten started.
The problem with this is one can create a thought experiment where a collapse occurs with no one observing it's output to a printer.

https://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...67/#post-73751

This is the problem with using terms that have a teleological implication, such as 'observation'.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2021, 04:07 PM
 
Location: North Idaho
591 posts, read 180,078 times
Reputation: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona Humphrey View Post
In the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, quantum events don't happen in any one specific way until you look at them. Prior to being observed, an event is a purely abstract probability wave describing every way it could happen.
Yes, but what if you take the Sum-Over-Histories interpretation of QM and do away with the wave-function collapse altogether?

Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2022, 06:23 AM
 
10,137 posts, read 5,263,817 times
Reputation: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
I keep hearing that because we have not solved the hard problem of consciousness, therefore consciousness as a property of existence is plausible. I hear this from philosophers and physicists who appear unaware of the decades findings of neuroscience.

One of my problems with this idea is that it also does not explain the hard problem of consciousness.

So my question is, has anyone read any credible, scientific arguments for the idea of a cosmic consciousness?
Yes...there has been work on that.

https://youtu.be/h0FZx85A9LQ

https://youtu.be/x1aFivhFWGc

https://bigthink.com/thinking/is-hum...ating-reality/
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2022, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Germany
13,735 posts, read 3,242,660 times
Reputation: 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
I did ask for credible, scientific arguments. A philosophical argument based on misunderstanding things like the two slit experiment, and that does not explain how consciousness works was not what I was after.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2022, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil
3,456 posts, read 5,745,887 times
Reputation: 1951
Maybe when statisticians start to make serious statisticial research about the phenomenon of synchronicity as described by Carl G. Jung, we can have some...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2022, 12:17 AM
 
Location: Germany
13,735 posts, read 3,242,660 times
Reputation: 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
What you are saying is the same as those that supported Hoyle over Lamaitre.
They could have also produced dissenting views.
EVERY bit of scientific research...especially "breakthroughs" see a lot of dissent.

https://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.c...eates-reality/

That you completely reject a top scientist that is published in the top physics journals tells me:
A. You know squat about it yourself.
B. You are ruled by your bias.
You are missing two options.

C. Maybe I DO know more about the relevant QM than someone who is also NOT a QM physicist.
D. I am basing my view on those QM physicists who DO know more than Robert Lanza. You are not the only one who can use argument from authority, and at least mine are relevant. Remember that list of actual relevant authorities who shot down Lanza's ideas?

So instead of once again evading the logic, you need to address your problem that his theory is based on the false idea that in the double slit experiment, it is the researchers' mind that causes the light to act as a wave or a particle. That is not what is meant by 'observer'.

Nowhere in the QM literature I have read does it argue for some immaterial mind to explain how matter and energy works.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2022, 05:59 AM
 
10,137 posts, read 5,263,817 times
Reputation: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes View Post
You are missing two options.

C. Maybe I DO know more about the relevant QM than someone who is also NOT a QM physicist.
D. I am basing my view on those QM physicists who DO know more than Robert Lanza. You are not the only one who can use argument from authority, and at least mine are relevant. Remember that list of actual relevant authorities who shot down Lanza's ideas?

So instead of once again evading the logic, you need to address your problem that his theory is based on the false idea that in the double slit experiment, it is the researchers' mind that causes the light to act as a wave or a particle. That is not what is meant by 'observer'.

Nowhere in the QM literature I have read does it argue for some immaterial mind to explain how matter and energy works.
Well...that you do not know that Lanza is also a physicist, is telling.
Published in top Journals:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...16/2021/05/048
Could you please substantiate your credentials and recognition to support, "Maybe I DO know more about the relevant QM".
You cite Appeal to Authority to discredit...then, you Appeal to Authority.
So...you refuted nothing.
New things are figured out all the time...that you dismiss this completely is also telling...of something I already knew. You function on bias...not a logical, open-minded search for new information & knowledge.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top