Peter will have something to say about this one.

 

 

31 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Peter will have something to say about this one.

😄

Actually, I don't have much to say. He is speculating about consciousness, which is outside my area of expertise. I do appreciate him admitting that he cannot prove any of his ideas. Having said that, I found his statement that consciousness is scale invariant (i.e., it appears in smaller and larger animals, independently of their size) to be highly dubious. As far as I know, animal consciousness is not very well understood. It appears that some animals do have consciousness, but those are all highly developed mammals that are roughly of the same size as we are. Claiming that single-cell organisms have consciousness appears not to be in line with what is currently known.

Consciousness is difficult to define to begin with. Add to that the complexity of quantum physics and you have the perfect setup to confuse people with pseudo-scientific statements that are not based on any facts. 

Would you give me $100,000 if I tell you I want to start a company that sells magnetic clips that improve people's abilities using quantum entanglement? To me, this sounds totally ridiculous, but it happened in the Dragon's Den: https://www.cbc.ca/dragonsden/pitches/neuroreset-inc . 

We are living in a world where people believe you anything if you say "quantum entanglement" three times 😄

 

43 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

I do appreciate him admitting that he cannot prove any of his ideas.

 

True.

 

44 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

It appears that some animals do have consciousness, but those are all highly developed mammals that are roughly of the same size as we are.

 

I'd say definitive rather than "appears". Not definitive in a literal sense I guess but many studies have found very strong evidence for animal consciousness.  Anybody that's owned an animal is well aware that their animals are obviously conscious. Regarding them as not conscious is an excuse many animal abusers can use. Nothing p's me of more than those that regard them as walking vegetables. I get a twitch in my quadricep, the sort I usually get before a snap kick to the head is manifest.

Depends how you define roughly. I hope you are including cats. 😸 Clearly its a sliding scale dependant on neurological density. Somewhere between a single celled organism and your immense brain, Peter, consciousness is manifest. 😀 I tend to think its much further down that scale than we imagine.

 

58 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

Claiming that single-cell organisms have consciousness appears not to be in line with what is currently known.

 

Yeah that's quite a claim. 

 

59 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

Would you give me $100,000 if I tell you I want to start a company that sells magnetic clips that improve people's abilities using quantum entanglement?

 

Where do I sign? 🤣

1 hour ago, qqwertzde said:

We are living in a world where people believe you anything if you say "quantum entanglement" three times 😄

 

Deepak says it fifty times. 

There's a comedian with a joke about paying the electric bill.  He's says he never pays it because he's never seen electricity.  He writes right on the bill "haven't seen any all month" 🙂 

I'm finding it hard to believe that 'facts' are apparently constricted by theory here.   Why is any quantum theory more 'factual' than any other quantum theory (consciousness and paranormal events being quantum based)?

To me, considering how little we know about the quantum level (or even what may be sub quantum -- why do we call it quantum anyway -- because we can't see or comprehend any finer detail? - I suspect thats a fact), we can't really what is a fact or what is 'real' or even 'physical'.  Are photons 'physical'?  Quantum fields (which I admittedly know next to nothing about).

It just feels like Im on the outside watching people scoff at the idea that the Earth isnt the center of the Universe or that the Earth is round.  Why do we aalways want to limit 'facts and reality' by the so called facts and realaity we think we've already come to know?

11 minutes ago, sightseer said:

Why do we aalways want to limit 'facts and reality' by the so called facts and realaity we think we've already come to know?

 

There are no facts. Science doesn't really prove anything. Rather it collects evidence that supports or refutes predictions. Its more about probability of being correct I would say.

Over to Peter. And if he agrees with me he gets a cat point. 

14 minutes ago, martin-w said:

There are no facts.

To me, reality is "nothing but facts".  Its just that we all have varied 'eyesight' -- the ability to discern these facts.  Like knowledge...a kindergartener can't handle algebra and the one who knows algebra well perhaps can't handle (comprehend...yet) quantum level phyics.

so we have all of these of varied understanding/knowledge/intellect all looking with varying abilities to discern (like having blurry eyesight when looking at a high resolution photograph...what difference does it make -- you can't see the detail).

Facts are all that is really there...we just can't see them in many cases. in my opinion.

With blurry eyesight we look at  high resolution truth and we say "it appears to be this" or "it appears to be that".  what do we know?

 

I would love for us to come to consensus on conciousness .  It is said that a person 'loses consciousness'...does that make them on par to the aforementioned paramecium?  really? 

Edited February 18, 20224 yr by sightseer

1 hour ago, sightseer said:

1) I'm finding it hard to believe that 'facts' are apparently constricted by theory here.   Why is any quantum theory more 'factual' than any other quantum theory (consciousness and paranormal events being quantum based)?

2) To me, considering how little we know about the quantum level (or even what may be sub quantum -- why do we call it quantum anyway -- because we can't see or comprehend any finer detail? - I suspect thats a fact), we can't really what is a fact or what is 'real' or even 'physical'. 

3) Are photons 'physical'?  Quantum fields (which I admittedly know next to nothing about).

4)  Why do we aalways want to limit 'facts and reality' by the so called facts and realaity we think we've already come to know?

1) You are right, we shouldn't use the word  quantum theory here. A better word would be quantum physics, which comprises the collection of facts observed in all experiments that have been devoted to this topic. 

However, the difference in these notions, albeit relevant on a semantic level, is quite minor when we concentrate on the actual facts -  the observations. Quantum theory has been tested millions of times in a myriad of different systems, and it always correctly described what happened in experiments. Hence, as far as the facts are concerned, the theory states pretty much the same as the observations.

By contrast, the hypothesis that consciousness and paranormal events have anything to do with quantum physics has not passed a single observational test. That is the only reason why it is not a big thing in science. Not for the lack of trying, just for the lack of success.

A nice why to tell a good theory from a bad one is predictive power. Quantum theory can be used to make predictions about how a real system should behave. We use these predictions nowadays to create a lot of technology: lasers, transistors, novel materials, and sooo much more. I guarantee you: if quantum consciousness would have shown to be correct, there would be a huge number of people trying to build something new with that concept. 

2) We actually know an immense amount of stuff about quantum physics, perhaps more than about anything else. It is just not as present in the public mind because the details are complicated and the observed phenomena are often very counter-intuitive (but they are observations, i.e., facts; not a theory).

3) Yes. In fact, nothing is more physical than photons. See https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/09/03/can-humans-ever-directly-see-a-photon/#:~:text=Yes.,specifically designed to detect light.

and https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-eye-photon-20160719-snap-story.html

4) Scientists are more or less doing the exact opposite. If there is a theory, they start to test it (including paranormal stuff). A good theory must make precise statements about when its predictions will be wrong (it must be falsifiable, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper ). A theory can be wrong because it has been refuted by observations, and that happens to the majority of theories that are developed in science. A really bad theory is one that applies to any possible observation. Like as if meteorology would only state that the sun will shine tomorrow, or it will not. The predictive power of such a theory is zero, so it is basically useless. 

51 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

the hypothesis that consciousness and paranormal events have anything to do with quantum physics has not passed a single observational test.

One of the wikipedia pages that I found while reading about that guy you mentioned in another thread (wish I could be more precise at the moment) mentioned a girl who claimed she could see inside people's bodies and determine what illnesses they had and they tested her and she was right 80% of the time according to my understanding of what I read.  I wouldn't call that 'not passed a single observational test'.  I would call that 'people not wanting to accept something totally outside their realm of belief'.

and if you say that observations equal facts then what of others observations -- like my ghost story for example - or yours and martins and other peoples premonition stories?  These are all 'observations' are they not?

How do you prove depression in a laboratory setting?  or does it not exist?

and I should've caught that photon thing... I've always been fascinated by our eyes being basically antennas tuned to a certain segment of the EM spectrum.  So with that in mind though, why would it be outside the realm of possibility that other parts of the brain (not just human) were tuned to other 'excitations'?

Consider that dogs (some dogs I guess) can actually predict when a person is about to have a seizure.  How?  What does the dog sense?  We like to say that dogs and other animals can feel an earthquake coming or maybe hear it or that they can smell a certain disease.  We'll say anything that fits into our realm of understanding but maybe dogs actually 'see' (literally) things that we don't even know to look for.

Edited February 18, 20224 yr by sightseer

1 hour ago, sightseer said:

1) and if you say that observations equal facts then what of others observations -- like my ghost story for example - or yours and martins and other peoples premonition stories?  These are all 'observations' are they not?

2) How do you prove depression in a laboratory setting?  or does it not exist?

3) and I should've caught that photon thing... I've always been fascinated by our eyes being basically antennas tuned to a certain segment of the EM spectrum.  So with that in mind though, why would it be outside the realm of possibility that other parts of the brain (not just human) were tuned to other 'excitations'?

4) Consider that dogs (some dogs I guess) can actually predict when a person is about to have a seizure.  How?  What does the dog sense?  We like to say that dogs and other animals can feel an earthquake coming or maybe hear it or that they can smell a certain disease.  We'll say anything that fits into our realm of understanding but maybe dogs actually 'see' (literally) things that we don't even know to look for.

1) There are things that science can address and things that it cannot address. Science is not a collection of facts and theories, it is much more a method how to acquire reliable information. They key point is that it deals with repeatable experiments: if you want something to become a scientific fact, you have to tell others how they can make the same observations. If they can, your findings become part of scientific knowledge. If they cannot, your findings are considered refuted. Your observations may still be real, they are just not scientific. 

Regarding the story of the girl you mentioned, or our common experience of premonitions: I can tell you that my premonition happened, and I have no reason to doubt yours or Martin's. They are (or may be; I cannot tell for sure about you guys since I wasn't there) not more or less real than the fact that masses attract each other. They are just not repeatable. I personally have no problem with admitting that my personal premonition has no scientific base 🙂

2) Mental health is a very important topic to me. A very close relative (not the same as in the other story) was diagnosed with it. Now medicine is not my subject matter, but the physician prescribed a drug for him and his condition got better. The predictive power of psychology seems to be strong 🙂

3) Yes, absolutely. There is evidence that birds use quantum effects to sense magnetic fields (for navigation), for instance. Will quantum entanglement be created in the brain? Yes, all the time. It just disappears so quickly that it can't be useful at all.

Let me illustrate what I mean with that with the example of the two mittens you put in two parcels and send it to two people, say Alice and Bob. You keep doing that with 1000 more pairs of mittens. Alice will receive the right mitten 50% of the time, and Bob as well. As long as they do not talk to each other, each of them will just receive a random set of left and right mittens. However, if they compare the content of their packages, they will realize that they always received opposite mittens. That's a correlation. Quantum entanglement is just another word for quantum correlations. There is more to it than the example of the two mittens, but that is not important to understand how correlation is lost.

Imagine Alice and Bob are both postmasters and receive a lot of parcels everyday. Imagine all those parcels contain mittens and look identical. Initially, they might remember where the package is that you sent them, but over time they lose track. After a while, they will just pick a random mitten out of a pile of parcels. At that time, they cannot verify correlations anymore, the information is simply lost.

If a photon hits your retina, it will create an entanglement between an atom in the retina and the radiation field. At that time, the atom in your eye is correlated with the outside world, and the signal about this will be sent to your brain along an axon. However, many (!) more photons will hit your retina soon thereafter, and many of those signals will take the same route. At this point, all entanglement is lost, and that happens really quickly.

4) Without any claims of scientific rigor, I am fully on your side. We had dogs, cats, mice, and budgies as pets, and even the budgies showed a great sense of character, community spirit, and individuality. I am fully sold on the idea that they have a consciousness. I don't plan to prove that scientifically, I am just happy to play with them 🙂

Peter

5 hours ago, qqwertzde said:

I am fully sold on the idea that they have a consciousness. I don't plan to prove that scientifically,

I'm not sure if I owe you an apology or not but I have definitely been misunderstanding your position.  I thought you were saying that until a certain something is proven true scientifically, then that something cannot be thought of as being true.  But this is apparently not your position.  Science, then, would be as an AM radio in a world where satellite radio exists.  It can neither prove nor disprove satellite radio because it has no means of reception.  I would say "satellite radio exists" and you might say "I believe it exists but we cannot prove it".  so...fair enough.  I hope your family members are doing well.  Its a well known struggle.