Materialism and Consciousness.

[Sidhe]

READ THE DAMN LINKS!!!



I'm trying to work out if this guy is really this stupid or he's just deliberatley ignorant and self absorbed to the point that he just spouts rubbish at anyone who'll listen. Credible scientists with credible papers and credible experiments which you would know if you read the damn links in the first place and saved your self the humiliation of looking like an arse

 

[Perfection]

read the damn links.

I read a few, none of them had much relevance. If you could direct me to any that provide experimental evidence for quantum uncertaintity having significant effect on conciousness I'm all ears.

I'm trying to work out if this guy is really this stupid or he's just deliberatley ignorant and self absorbed to the point that he just spouts rubbish at anyone who'll listen. Credible scientists with credible papers and credible experiments which you would know if you read the damn links in the first place and saved your self the humiliation of looking like an arse

Let's let other posters be the judge of that not you.

 

[Sidhe]

I Just did!!! Read them you fool.

It's from the university of Arizona, it dicusses how quantum effects effect conciousness it is a website from the University of Arizona that gives clear and experimental evidence for the effects of the quantum on biology.

It also gives a deal of experiment on what this means to overall conciousness acording to qm and physics and biological and psychological and chemicle study.

If you don't want to read it fine, stop posting and go bury your head again.

READ THE DAMN LINKS OR STFU PLEASE

 

[Perfection]

It's from the university of Arizona, it dicusses how quantum effects effect conciousness it is a website from the University of Arizona that gives clear and experimental evidence for the effects of the quantum on biology.

Well, I'm looking on the university of Arizona page, and I'm not seeing it, would you kindly quote it or something?

Is it in one of the sub-links?

Frankly I'm not seeing it.

Also note, that I could care less about quantum effects on biology, I want quantum uncertaintity effects on nuerology/phsychology.

 

[Sidhe]

Well, I'm looking on the university of Arizona page, and I'm not seeing it, would you kindly quote it or something?



Is it in one of the sub-links?

Frankly I'm not seeing it.

Also note, that I could care less about quantum effects on biology, I want quantum uncertaintity effects on nuerology/phsychology.

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QuanCon.html

read these links.

The first is the part of the university that does research into quantum conciousness and gives talks lectures and researches QM effects and how it effects conciousness, so it directly discusses implications of QM effects

The second is the actual biological and physics experimentation on synapses etc.

 

[Perfection]

Yeah, you already gave me the link, now quote the part that gives me the experimental evidence for quantum uncertainity having an effect on nuerology.

 

[Sidhe]

I've given you two links that conclusively show Quantum Electron Tunneling happens between synapses, if you can't draw your own conclusions abouy all these other quantum effects on this link then read the first when they do it for you so you don't have to think about it and hurt your obviously overworked brain

 

[Perfection]

Well where are these parts? I'm sorry, I don't have the time to wade through 5 links just for a couple of snippets of info. Quote them here and give me a link underneath. It's not that hard I really think you can do it.

BTW just showing that quantum tunneling occurs doesn't mean it has an effect on conciousness, you'd need to show that a small number of quantum events can trigger an action potential or the like.

 

[Sidhe]

There are some wierd brain effects that can be explained from experimentation into qm theory. I suggest you don't want to read it in full because it makes you look stupid. Read it and then shut up about QM not effecting conciousness please.

Im afraid this is pretty hard to follow without the pictures so you'll get no insite read the link it takes about 5 minutes. And I can't copy it all as it's too long. So read the link itself or you wont have a clue what this stuff is about.

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QuanCon.html

Biology Cycles and Quantum State Cycles.
The Biology Cycle:

The Biology Cycle is based on Stuart Hameroff's viewpoint, and is very similar to it. Its Stages are:

1 - A Tubulin Site Electron sits within its tubulin cage in one of its 2 Quantum States. The Tubulin Site Electron has one of 2^1 = 2 States, so it contains one qbit of information, representable by the 2^1 = 2-dimensional Cl(1) Clifford Algebra that is isomorphic to the Complex Numbers.

2 - That Tubulin acts on its Microtubule through the Tiling (and possibly through interaction with Superradiant Photons in the Microtubule Core). The sum of such actions by N_mt Tubulins within the Microtubule determines the Conformation State of the Microtubule. The Conformation State is representable by the 2^N_mt dimensional Cl(N_mt) Clifford Algebra.

3 - The Microtubule Conformation State is transmitted by MAP links to affect the Conformation States of other Microtubles in the same Neuron.

4 - The size of the main body of a Neuron is roughly the micron range of submillimeter gravity. To connect between different Neurons, Stuart Hameroff has "... suggested ... that Electron [Quantum] Tunneling [such as that described by Evan Harris Walker] occurs between Micotubules in ... adjacent Neurons. The distance across the Gap Junction itself is only 3.5 nanometers, though it is a bit further to the Microtubules. ... There are special organelles (dendritic lamellar bodies - DLBs) found only on either side of Gap Junctions in dendrites in the brain. The DLBs are attached by filamentous proteins to the Microtubules, and their structure suggests they may be suitable ... for Quantum Electron Tunneling devices ...".

5 - Through the links of Stages 2-4, a total of N Tubulin Site Electrons are connected and brought into a coherent Superposition of States. The Superposition of States is representable by the 2^N dimensional Cl(N) Clifford Algebra.

The QUANTUM STATE CYCLE occurs during the Superposition of States. It is based on Penrose lightcone cycles and on Sarfatti Back-Reaction. Many of the Quantum States of the Superposition are Closed Timelike Loops, some of which intersect with others. If each Closed Timelike Loop represents an Abstract Idea, then the Intersections among the Closed Timelike Loops represent Interactive Abstract Thought operating on the set of Abstract Ideas.


... it is concluded that these data only seem explicable as a form of "backaction" or retro-causal effect due to conscious experience. Backaction was discussed in the light of the role of time-symmetry in physics. It was speculated that consciousness plays the role of a highly coherent absorber and is therefore responsible for constructive "backaction" rather than destructive retro-causal effects which are thought to arise from non-coherent absorbers. ...".

 

[Sidhe]

According to Apoorva Patel in his paper Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code, quant-ph/0002037: "... Enzymes are the objects which catalyse biochemical reactions. They are large complicated molecules, much larger than the reactants they help, made of several peptide chains. Their shapes play an important part in catalysis, and often they completely surround the reaction region. They do not bind to either the reactants or the products ... for example, enzymes can suck out the solvent molecules from in between the reactants ... It is proposed that enzymes play a crucial role in maintaining quantum coherence ... Enzymes provide a shielded environment where quantum coherence of the reactants is maintained. ... For instance, diamagnetic electrons do an extraordinarily good job of shielding the nuclear spins from the environment ... the coherence time observed in NMR is O(10) sec, much longer than the thermal environment relaxation time ( hbar / kT = O(10^(-14) ) sec) and the molecular collision time ( O(10^(-11)) sec ), and still neighbouring nuclear spins couple through the electron cloud. ... Enzymes are able to create superposed states of chemically distinct molecules. ... Enzymes are known to do cut-and-paste jobs ... (e.g. ... methylation, replacing H by CH3, which converts U to T). Given such transition matrix elements, quantum mechanics automatically produces a superposition state as the lowest energy equilibrium state. ... Delocalisation of electrons and protons over distances of the order of a few angstroms greatly helps in molecular bond formation. It is important to note that these distances are much bigger than the Compton wavelengths of the particles, yet delocalisation is common and maintains quantum coherence. ...".\

This bit gives an insight into what I was talking about with DNA mRNA processing. But I'm afraid it is only inference as I can't find the original paper although you can take it as red that mRNA use this principle too as well as the enzymes when changing. U to T via methylisation is a reference to Uracil to Thymine, which are of course RNA building blocks.

 

[Sidhe]

He he this technique is called lining suckers up for the fall

I think I'll have to try being vague more often, you just can't rely on people to go look stuff up for themselves, no matter how many links you give.

I apologise for not finding this info sooner. I still can't find the NASA paper so if anyone stumbles across it put it up.

 

[Souron]

I think I'll have to try being vague more often, you just can't rely on people to go look stuff up for themselves, no matter how many links you give.

Very true. Infact, the more links you give, the less people will look at them.

Links should be used as a citation to aid in credibilty of your opinion, not the arguement itself.

--Forum Debating 101.

 

[Sidhe]

If discussion is anything it's not sheeplike rolling out of links which is why I gave links and then tried to explain why I thought things were the way they were. The fact that people didn't read them is beside the point. It's no less of a valid opinion or point because people are too lazy to read stuff or to think about anything you've written.

And in the case of science usually if you make an assertion that something is scientific you provide links to the subject in question on which research agrees with your own. I agree though next time maybe I should try bright shiny objects to get people to pay attention, probably have more sucess

Bright, bright shiny oohhh bright oooh shiny

 

[Gothmog]

cg wrote:

*..free will..* ought to, at least, affect how you feel about your life - and that, in turn, should affect how you live it.

Yes, philosophy can affect our subjective experience.

I did go through a period when this type of fatalism bothered me. Of course at the time I was still convinced that humans could know truth beyond accumulated scientific knowledge and revelation.

At this stage in my life I accept that I cannot know about first causes. It does not bother me that I am a completely subjective being who is no more than the sum of its physical parts; and who makes decisions based on what is available to it - i.e. genetic and experience.

I am unique, I try to emulate people who I admire and try not to be like people I don't. I continually try to learn new things, and revisit old things from new perspectives. I take full responsibility for being me.

The question of a metaphysical soul does not impinge on this for me.

How is the idea of 'I' even tenable?

Well, it is one of the very few things that we must all take apriori. Just as I must take the existence of an objective external reality apriori.

But I don't see the need to take the existence of a metaphysical soul apriori. It just doesn't add explanatory power and I am beyond the need for it philosophically (though who knows, I may return to that place someday).

Experimentation with psychoactive drugs is another way to learn about the tentative nature of 'I'.

how can we justify treating irrational, crazy criminals different than rational ones

As I said before - potential future harm to society. Are you suggesting that we allow any behavior at all in our society just because you are worried about the metaphysical implications of free will and materialism?

so how can you be responsible for being who you are

Who will take responsibility for my actions if not me? Any takers?
Responsibility only makes sense in the context of a social group anyway.

As far as your dystopian vision - just because something is deterministic does not mean that we can predict it to any accuracy we want. To predict the state of the universe exactly it would take a computer larger than the universe.

I don't think it would ever be right to jail people on the basis of a 'tendency', but I do advocate trying to make changes to society that will reduce crime. Such as eliminating hunger and helping everyone to feel enfranchised. We already know that these factors increase crime, but I would never jail poor people preemptively for that.

@Sidhe - You are a very rude person, and it would be nice if you would stop that behavior

and saved your self the humiliation of looking like an arse

.

You keep spouting nonsense, and mixing definitions. I simply can't keep up with all of it.

e.g.

Few advocate that anything but a non deterministic universe exists by no means a proof positive of free will but a dismisal of materialism

a non deterministic universe in the flavor of QM is not a dismissal of materialism by any definition of materialism that I know.

And by the way and non-materialistic explanation is inherently non-scientific because science is: "branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws"

 

[Ayatollah So]

I'm not doubting the usefulness of these day-to-day explanations - I'm just doubting their overall veracity. Since, after all, the only real defense of htem is that, "This works most of the time, so let's use it most of the time!"

I'm not getting what you're saying, I guess. Let me clarify what I'm saying a little more. We have the concepts of a solid object, of animals, and of people. Each of the latter two concepts build on the one(s) listed before. Because each person is (at least almost always) one animal, we can use the distinctions we make about objects and animals to determine the "boundaries" of a person pretty well.

But if you're after the core meaning of "person", we need to look at psychological aspects (and the associated fine structure of the brain) as well as the gross physical aspects. It's not going to change the fact that there are, in principle, possible borderline cases though. Arguably, split-brain epilepsy patients are a real life borderline case. For most purposes they are a single person, but in some situations they temporarily better fit a conception of two persons sharing/competing for one body.

The point originally was that you were using rationality as a definition of control/free will , and that is a dubious trick that totally changes the words' meanings. You said that rationality was what merited someone jailtime, since someone who is rational is in control - and my point was that a rational person is no more in control than an irrational person. The former is at the mercy of their rationality, and the latter is at the mercy of their irrationality - what's the difference? Why are we deciding one means responsibility, and one doesn't?

"At the mercy of their rationality" sounds strange to my ear. To "stay in control" is often used to mean staying rational, while "to lose control" often means having one's reason swept away. Of course, there are other ways to lose control - muscular paralysis, political oppression - but I figured you had taken these off the table.

For praise or punishment to have a point, rationality is required. You won't get more of the praised behavior or less of the punished behavior, unless the person can understand the contingency and apply sufficiently long-range thinking.

What is wrong with [character being the wellspring of action]: It's precisely the opposite of freedom. (I know there are many problems with any attempt to posit free will - but I also know, with even more certainty, that not having free will violates my instinct, and is extremely destructive to any philosophy.).

But what, other than your philosphical/religious tradition, justifies this opposition between character-based action and "free" action? Why should anyone accept that definition of "free"; why shouldn't we declare the tradition to be based on a non sequitur?

[@ WillJ:] The only idea that results from your philosophy (to me at least) is this: I have nothing more than a window on the world. That is what consciousness is: powerless viewing.

The evidence I've seen strongly supports the idea that conscious mental activities have enormous influence on motor neurons. We act as much as we view.

 

[Sidhe]

Materialism is crap, only very poor scientists or very poor philosophers give it more than a nod to explain anything as complex as conciousness it's just nonsense to put everything down to the past when the past is non determinist and it's nonsense when nothing can ever be determinist at any moment in time either. It's just a sad theory for intelectual sub normal people, and I'll stop being rude when people start doing me the courtesy of reading what I write and not plaguerising it three pages later as if it was there own text. Gothmog I'm telling you if you honestly think modern philosophy uses materiealism to argue anything but the most basic things then you know nothing about modern philosophy. Give it up its a dead end philosophical tool. It no more explains conciousness than the DNA explains evolutionary theory, it's good to give us an overview but to really see the bigger picture you need so much more. I'll say it before and I'll say it again nothing about the past future or present is in anyway deterministic therefore materialism is not a tennable way of looking at things in isolation. You can go on saying free will cant exist or is unnecessary or is illusory or that materialism explains everything but fortunately no one else really cares any more. Especially modern day science or philosophy.

 

[Gothmog]

You are seemingly determined to continue spouting nonsense.

Could you at least comment on my definitions of materialism and science?

Maybe you could just give your definitions of the terms materialism and science?

 

[Sidhe]

I did explain it on another thread, materialism needs to be redefined otherwise it's meaningless when being used to explain the conciousness, but redefining it to what I think it should be would make it obsolete anyway. If you believe modern physics interpritation of both time and QM. Saying that our conciousness and it's entire history can be summed up solely by our material is not just a falacy but it's fraud too IMO.

 

[Gothmog]

Stop spouting nonsense please, just give me a definition for the words materialism and science.

I showed you mine, now you show me yours...

 

[Sidhe]

I can give you a definition of both your missing the point what I'm saying is no matter how you define it unless you include the words : but nothing about our past future or any moment in time is indicative of our current time frame and neither is anything that we look at in that time frame. There is no determinism in any direction in time and nothing not even the past can be predicted. But this makes materialism into a different word. Like material free will which are contradictary. I can give you the dictionary definition of both but neither materialism can explain the conciousness in its entirety and neither I would imagine can science atm, so as far as I'm concerned if your saying that anything that is scientific that directly refutes materialism is in fact supporting materialism then your talking nonsense.

That's poor logic A does not agree with B means B is false esentially if it's false then it cant be suported by phenomena from A.