This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How randomness of a photon particle in a two slit experiment could explain the phenomena of Consciousness and Decision-Making
If we stress on the Thomas young's double-slit experiment in which we ought to see that the photon beam when passed through the double slit we observe the wave nature of the photon particle as we get a scattered bands pattern on the wall unlike the single-slit where we observe the particle nature of the photon as it projects a single band pattern, in this experiment we can see that the behavior of the photon as a particle or a wave is random and so is its position after passing the double slit wall. Now i would like to relate this to the consciousness, when we face a situation in our life, how we perceive or react is as random as the photon. So i would like to ask people out in TED related to the consciousness studies is that, if we work on the principles of "Orch-Or" theory that says that the quantum superposition exists till the difference in the space-time curvatures is significant. so when we think with our conscious mind firstly how we can relate different quantum state as different reactions by a human mind and how can we get a clarity in decision making when the decisions are in space-time curvatures very close to each other. Secondly, the "Copenhagen experiment" explanation of the superposition failing under observation would hinder our research of certainty of the photon's position, How can we resolve the randomness of the particle and correspondingly in my case the absolute truth (perfect decision for a situation) for the conscious human mind. An experiment by Roger Penrose FELIX states that an electron is present at two different location and by using mirrors we can get a single position of this experiment. But, How we humans can tackle the randomness of our conscious mind. What we need to practice to reduce this randomness in our mind. How we can have a definite answer for a problem in our mind. How we humans can be certain in our thoughts.
Lawrence Trevanion
If you are interested I've made plenty of comments on TED on both consciousness and quantum mechanics.
The gist is:-
People are objects that perceive and therefore experience is expressed as "I perceive X" and NOT as "I have consciousness of X". Consciousness does not exist. The idea arises from a misunderstanding of the concept of perception.
If we analyse the real then a genuine explanation will be in terms of something not-real for otherwise the explanation is circular of infinitely regressive. We see because of light but light itself cannot be seen or visualised in principle. The traditional confusion in interpreting quantum mechanics is the futile attempt to explain the real in terms of itself.
Tim blackburn 30+
**Plato
robert richards
The higher order level thinking a particular brain is capable of the stronger the illusion of self conciousness. I don't think this has anything to do with the co-operation of the left and right side of the brain.
The type of brain that a human is born with is naturally robust in forming this illusion...as only mechanical operations can be.
So, can this phantom or illusion be considered an actual reality...or must something be solid, present, definable by it's parts befor it can be considered real? If we had a definite answer to that then mabye we would have a way forward to encapturing the essence of consciousness.
Of course all this is just an idea that just popped into my head...the ghost in the machine at work!
Craig Weinberg
Yes, I think that academic politics would create resistance for my ideas, although there should be no specific objection as far as I know. There should be no functional difference between saying that we see because we actively sense matter or that we passively interpret collisions of matter, except that the former makes sense right off the bat and the latter requires some fictional abstraction layer of 'emergent property'. In the end something has to make sense of something, I only say that it really has to happen on every level or not at all, while our approach in recent years assumes that it must occur spontaneously without real explanation.
I care that it's scientific because ultimately I am trying to provide a more universal TOE, and spiritual terms tend to alienate the possibility of object legitimacy. I see subject and object as consequences of sense which divides itself into them, and the opposite, sense is the consequence of the symmetry of subject and object unity-beneath-division. I think that you can treat the universe like a material machine and it works like that, right up to the point of trying to mechanize consciousness itself. Only then does the native priority of sense before substance become scientifically relevant.
It takes a lot of words to describe why sense might be an appropriate word, but only because we are unfamiliar with the concept of a truly neutral monism. It should be unfamiliar, because we are not impartial. We experience the universe as a biological organism, so we are biased about what the universe means to us. Spirit makes it seem like the cosmos should honor the sanctity of life and meaning whereas sense only ensures that categories of experience tend to have their own momentum.
I agree Unit of Subjectivity sounds incomplete, but no more so than 'c'. It's just a framework to begin to explore the relation of quanta and qualia. I think that our mind is part of what divides and unites the two.
Thanks to you too!
Mike Robinson
I have a little challenge for you. Someone once said, "An idea that requires polysyllabic words to describe it, is probably not an idea worth describing." That is a bit of a stretch but, can you spell it out in layman's terms? Call it an exercise you will eventually need to do to get your interesting ideas across to the general public.
Cheers and keep up the exploration!
Craig Weinberg
How about this.
1. The universe will seem to support either faith or reason. Reason requires belief in disbelief and faith requires disbelief in disbelief. In between reason and faith is reality, but neither reason without faith nor faith without reason can make sense of everything. The insistence that it can is ultimately a bias that tends to become crazy and dangerous if acted upon completely in real life.
2. All of the shortcomings of religion and science can be accounted for by each side mistaking objects for subjects and subjects for objects.
3. We can fix this by looking at how we look at the universe, so that we take our own experience more literally and physical existence more figuratively. Photons become nothing but atomic experiences. Consciousness becomes the physical inertia of events which tie body, brain, world, and lifetime together.
4. Consciousness is what divides the universe into symmetrical parts. It separates being, doing, and time and matter, energy, and space. This division makes it so that the former are presented as interior and ranging widely in quality, realism, and meaning while the latter is presented as exterior, real, and meaningless.
5. This division replaces the idea of the Big Bang as an event in time and space, so that the Big Bang is the division of the universe into subjective times in objective places.
natasha nikulina 50+
Let's simplify, hope you don't mind :)
We are consciousness that says: " I am not consciousness that thinks"
We are creatures that think /see/observe in Time, but it is not where the real action is.
natasha nikulina 50+
The question is not why science should use symbols, like 'spirit', the question is : why shouldn't it ?
What is science in its essence if not the empirical observation of Spirit ? :)
Mike Robinson
And maybe this is what you two are talking about...
I certainly lean towards the material world because I notice definite cause and effects that I can't deny. There are a million examples, whereas the spirit, sense or faith aspects of life are contextual and subjective. More like feelings or intuition or dreams; they exist but are difficult to measure and know for certain. Even our own feelings and intuitions; much less those of others.
What if Natasha the "real action" actually is in Time and the rest just a dream. Your dream. You are operating on theories and hunches aren't you? For some reason I am reminded of Zeno's paradoxes. How do they fit in with these theories.
Forgive me if my questions are naive.
natasha nikulina 50+
I agree with you and Craig that the word 'spirit ' does not quite fit to the scientific context, because of its religious connotation and 'vague' descriptive quality.
But...
Is 'exotic' particle, " spooky action in a distance ", god's ( 'god damn ' ) particle or ghost particle any better ?
"What if Natasha the "real action" actually is in Time and the rest just a dream. Your dream."
I'll have no problems with accepting your version, if you can help me with the definition of the word 'real' in Time frame reference.
What is real in illusion ? :)
" You are operating on theories and hunches aren't you? "
Maybe....with slight correction though, I test theories by intuition.
Certainty is a kind of impossible condition for intuition, but it provides you with 'bigger' picture where interconnectedness of everything is clearly seen in a dim image .Mind on the other hand, demands certainty and instead has the turtles all the way down or up, which pretty much the same.
So, there are no answers only choices.
"I certainly lean towards the material world ..."
What is matter ? How particles get their mass ?
Thanks for your 'naive ' questions and forgive me for mine ! :)
Mike Robinson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQjwkXrcUrs
Somehow the two have meaning and relevance to my "spirit"... which I can't and don't want to explain. You wrote about this in another post about the opera I think.... Some things defy explanation in spite of the innate desire we have to find answers. Some things blur the boundaries, or perhaps fit only in the Big Tent of Integral Theory. Some things I have to accept I will never know. Uncertainty seems so much more certain than certainty (of which I am uncertain). Back to the paradoxical aspects of being a brain in a vat.... how can we know?
I am enjoying this dialogue. Thank you
Padraig Connor
"Is 'exotic' particle, " spooky action in a distance ", god's ( 'god damn ' ) particle or ghost particle any better ?"
Brava! Brava! Brava!!!
natasha nikulina 50+
Thanks for the link !
natasha nikulina 50+
Sure, you are right whatever you choose, it's your thing...
I like this :
" Fiction is primordial, fact is contrived."
But how have you come up with it ? !
I guess, it's my problem, I don't quite understand your retina/ rod/ glutamate description.
BTW, what do you think about the 'third eye', pineal gland ? Pineal cytostructure have similar retinal cells, and you know about its divine status in ancient sacred traditions; the mind behind the matrix.
Almost literally, it sees !
Craig Weinberg
Why this is the case I think is because the who and the why are not a reality that 'simply is' but rather the ground of being, the meta-fact which can only 'seem like'. 'Seems like' is an invitation for direct participation, which is an essential, irreducible, and materially unexplainable property of the cosmos. 'Simply is' can be derived as a second order logic of 'seems like', being experiences that consistently seem, in some way, like they seemed before every time we check.
The double slit experiment, entanglement, decoherence... all of these are upside down terms for sense. Sense is the missing insight that ties cosmos, psyche, mind, body, time-space-matter-energy-information-theology together.
Craig Weinberg
Consider that all observations of photons have only ever been through measuring their indirect effects on the matter which makes up our instruments (even the eyes and brains of the humans using the instruments, as well as our native optical sensors).
Consider that light is not photons. Visual perception is quite removed from photons, relying on the concept of 'signals' to propagate 'information' about the optical environment. In reality our optic nerve is detecting synaptic glutamate concentration, opsin topology, or changes to retinal isomers more than photons. Our ability to dream and imagine in darkness shows that indeed, no external photons at all are necessary to generate realistic images in our awareness.
What is a signal? It's an anthropomorphic conceit really. We see synchronized behaviors on various levels, molecular, cellular, psychological, and we assume a sequential process of production. We talk about electromagnetism as if it were a physical presence in a vacuum, but we have only ever seen it in matter. Without matter to reflect, diffract, reflect light, or to be illuminated by light, there is nothing to see. No sparks or light rays in a vacuum. No accumulations of errant photons in pools or crusts. Energy may in fact be nothing but 'things that happen to matter' - stories that matter tells.
Some stories are very literal and unambiguous, and become more so the further into the microcosm and macrocosm you go...until you hit the Classical limit, and then...it all flips anti-Copernican and becomes very Zen, with virtual this and Dark that. Particle waves and anti-matter.
Other stories are the opposite. Not about spinning objects inside of larger whirling ensembles, but about characters and destiny. Super-signifying epics full of arch-symmetry, poetry, and deep metaphor. Fiction blurs into literalism and fantasy turns solemn, reverent and monastic as formalism emerges to re-link (rel-ligion) the figurative with the literal.
Craig Weinberg
In my defense I can only say that I have come to physics through the backdoor, from consciousness and a lifetime of studying it first hand, from scratch, even avoiding most philosophy. /disclaimer
Here it is:
Photons may not exist.
What exists is the sensitivity to changes in matter. Sensitivity across a vacuum, sensitivity on top of sensitivity, on top of insensitivity...all manner of layers and symmetries of sensemaking and significance.
I know, I can feel your eyes rolling from here. "What about the photoelectric effect? What about lasers and Feynman and photomultipliers..supercolliders...the whole Standard Model?? You are an idiot! We know photons exist. Quantum Mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of physics!'
I agree, and I may be an idiot too, but not because of this idea. I have spoken to a number of people about this, and while physics professors tend to become very angry, none of them has said anything to make me doubt my proposal (not surprising for a crackpot - but I mean I have not heard any argument yet that I have not already considered). I'm not married to the idea. My concept of a cosmos that is fundamentally grounded in sense experience rather than matter across space or information processing does not depend on photons being real or not, but they become redundant and explainable if we consider the possibility of primordial detection-response (I call it Quorum Mechanics) capacities associated with matter. To be precise, it is a capacity which is ontologically perpendicular to matter-in-space. It is sense-through-time.
natasha nikulina 50+
WOW !
You don't sound like a crackpot !: )
I think, a 'backdoor' is quite an entrance to quantum physics.
Stripped of all complexities it can be reduced to mystic insight :
" The knower is the known"
There is nothing really exists but relationships.
The universe is an answer, we need to find a right question.
What you call 'sense' is usually called 'spirit', would you agree that it sounds pretty familiar then:
SPIRIT is the missing insight that ties cosmos, psyche, mind, body, time-space-matter-energy-information-theology together.
" Energy may in fact be nothing but 'things that happen to matter' - stories that matter tells." ( !!!!!! )
And matter is ???
The Svetasvatara Upanisad says:
kesagra-sata-bhagasya
satamsah sadrsatmakah
jivah suksma-svarupo 'yam
sankhyatito hi cit-kanah
‘If we divide the tip of a hair into a hundred parts and then take one of these parts and divide it again into a hundred parts, that very fine division is the size of but one of the numberless living entities. They are all cit-kana, particles of spirit, not matter.'
So... Energy may be nothing but things that happen to spirit ...
Does it make any sense ? :)
Thank you !
Craig Weinberg
Thanks, and yes, the word Spirit is another way of describing it, but I think that word is too loaded to be accepted as scientific truth. Although spirit captures the connotations of subjectivity, feeling, enthusiasm, trans-material, immortal, and primordial, it is off-center to my purposes in that it can denote absolute disconnection with material, and a reification of temporal experience into a kind of pseudo-physical force that literally travels through space causing things to happen from an omniscient perspective. I think it's more subtle and complicated.
While sense isn't a great substitute, I think it has some advantages: (See http://multisenserealism.com/9-sense-motive/). It connotes first person subjectivity on different levels, sensation-perception-understanding-intuition, but remains neutral as far as giving privilege to either concretely ordinary experience or profound, supernatural concepts. Sense is embodied by natural qualities as well as intellectual abstraction. It links information with real world participation.
"cit-kana" nice. I would like to formalize these concepts in a way that might be more easily integrated into Western frameworks. Cit-jana I would call maximally flattened, ie fragmented qualia (or quanta) at what I would call the Planck-Turing limit. I have a proposal to describe subjectivity on a scale from maximal qualia (the Totality, Monad, or greatest possible inertial frame, the eternal moment, Sri Krsna, Ein Sof, Tao, Zero Point Field, etc) to minimal that I am calling the Chalmeroff Scale (http://multisenserealism.com/2012/04/14/proposed-unit-of-subjectivity-the-chalmeroff/).
I use the terms sense and motive as the essential principles, which correlate to
spirit and will (anthropomorphic level)
electric and magnetic fields (but inside out)
matter/density/inertia/formation and energy/acceleration/transformation
significance/symmetry/augmentation and entropy/mystery/cancellation as 'informational' consequences
natasha nikulina 50+
correct me if I am wrong, I guess your theory is consistent with the general body of scientific knowledge, as you understand it, but because it attempts to reach a deeper level of knowing than that mapped out by the scientific 'theorem method' of step-by-step reasoning, its conclusions may not be fully explicable in terms of the current scientific mindset and most likely will be rejected by it.
Why should you care how 'scientific' it looks like ?
You need tons of words to explain what is 'sense' in the context of your context, while one word is enough. Spirit is a symbol, it does not imply that it is not real. It is maybe one real force carrier for weak and strong... and gravity. Sounds weired, but at the moment, I don't have any other picture .
You are right , it is heavily loaded with 'supernatural' connotation and this connotation should be removed, there is nothing supernatural, nothing is external anywhere.But 'spirit' conveys reverence and it is perfectly natural feeling, when we are dealing with a mystery .
Symbol, be it 'spirit' or 'god' resonates, this means that one may access the ideas they reflect without mediation.
I could be wrong :)
'Unit of subjectivity' sounds a bit incomplete :) In the realm where there is no objectivity, there is no subjectivity either, one exists only by the virtue of the other.
When subjectivity enters the picture, you need to balance it and introduce the 'unit of objectivity'.... So, it must be simply a unit. A quantum is the minimum unit of any physical or not physical entity involved in an interaction, it is subjective and objective (or neither) by itself. But it doesn't give this sensation of 'spirit' as cit-kanah does. I think, human brain is designed to retain narratives, symbols not words.
Frankly, I don't know, but i believe , that 'it's our mind, which is moving"
" is it the wind moving or is it the flag? The monk answers, neither, its your mind that is moving. "
Thanks for responding !
Chris Kelly 20+
Brilliant response.
natasha nikulina 50+
Actually, it was you who opened me to the idea ... Tease out the cryptic messages of ancient sacred texts and you'll see science there.
Thank you !!!
John Dunbar 10+
When tackling consciousness I would like to use the analogy the eye can't see the eye. What I mean by that is if your looking for consciousness with your own consciousness, then you can never really be sure what you have found is actually what consciousness is. The hunter can't be the hunted. Its similar to the idea of introspection. You cannot fully see your own thoughts why? Because your seeing those thoughts with different thoughts that are all originating from the same place, the brain. You just can't get outside of that. Someone else can see something about you that you cannot, but similarly since we can't trade consciousness with one another, they can never fully understand you either. This just seems to be a truth of this existence. If there is an answer to this then I think neuroscience holds the key, but remember when tackling this topic everything you experience is governed by the brain.
Mike Robinson
Cause and effect is a fairly practical tool to utilize but emergent properties blur the lines. Cause and effect are only meaningful terms when "framed" with a context which focuses our attention in a particular way. Everything can be traced back to the Big Bang as the original cause.
The cause of Chris's more esoteric views is the sum of his experiences in life. The effect is his attempts to convince Krisztian. And vice versa...
In my solipsistic worldview I am creating both of you for my entertainment! Prove me wrong!
Nothing can be known for absolute certain but probability means some things are very reliable, like gravity and death. I think science is the practice of trying to create a little more certainty, as opposed to speculation and belief.
Gerald O'brian 50+
Comment deleted
Chris Kelly 20+
I would not call anything random.
Everything happens for a reason.
Everything is connected to something.
In regard to the actual topic of this conversation, the author seems to be basing the question on the assumption that 'consciousness' is a singularity when in fact there are many levels to consciousness and unless and until our esteemed physicists take each of these levels into consideration, they will continue to be confounded by that which they in their ignorance consider to be 'random'.
natasha nikulina 50+
Thanks for the interesting topic !
I think Chris is right , there is no randomness as such. let's call it something like 'chaotic dynamics'. There is order in everything, but we don't have a pattern for it and can't recognise it.
",,, we can get clarity in our thoughts by increasing our consciousness (decreasing the randomness)...."
I think we can have the 'feeling' of clarity developing our imaginative consciousness.The field of ' imaginative consciousness' is not less real than the field of physical consciousness, but it is different.
It has its own logic , let's call it 'fuzzy' logic , its own laws and its own 'is-ness'. Quite literally it is a 'higher frequency ' state of consciousness and only humans ( as far as i know) can access it.
" How we humans can be certain in our thoughts."
We'd better not :)
Everything we think we know is our coherent belief system and we should hold it lightly, allowing it to change with new inputs or even let it go if it starts to collapse upon itself.
Paradoxically, being not certain gives more clarity in our mind .
Chris Kelly 20+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Chris Kelly 20+
Can you name one thing in life that does not relate to or depend on something else?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Chris Kelly 20+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
as of now, it is an open question whether randomness exists in the universe or not. but most physicists subscribe to the idea that it does. so if you know otherwise, time to tell.
Chris Kelly 20+
There is a saying "as above, so below" which encapsulates the law of correspondences.
Here is an example of one such correspondence as it relates to this topic of conversation.
The conversation's premise is based on a photon's "randomness" in relation to consciousness. To fully comprehend how flawed this is, one first needs to fully comprehend the nature of consciousness beyond the intellectual level of mind. Key: There are many levels of consciousness.
In regard to consciousness, just as with the double-split study, consider what Eastern philosophy instructs with regard to being mindful. When we are 'watching' our own thoughts, when we are 'aware' of the processes of our intellectual mind/ego, we can "defeat" (collapse) ego by facing it repeatedly. Thus, by 'watching' our own thought process, we collapse the "wave & particle" illusion as experienced via the intellectual mind and not only direct, but create our own point particle because as we focus on our thoughts consciously, we're focusing; creating a point particle ... like the wave, distraction collapses.
If we are not mindful of our thought process, it may seem scattered or 'random', but there's nothing random about it. Unfocused, yes ... random, no.
It would probably easier for physicists to accept this if only they'd realize there's intelligence/consciousness within every atom. The more complex the life form, the more concentrated its level of intelligence/consciousness.
Of all the life forms on this planet, the human being is unique in his ability to increase his own level of heightened conscious awareness, which is a meditative practice involving ... what? Focus? Elimination of the ego? Mindfully collapsing waves to points?
"How do we know that?"
We test ourselves.
natasha nikulina 50+
what we call 'rendom' is really a lack of information or a matter of ignorance. It is synonymous with :
we don't know, it is outside the scope of our models."
"... If one knew the initial force of one's thumb on the coin, its interaction with the air molecules, its reaction to the force of gravity, etc., the path of the coin would be predetermined from a unique solution of its equation of motion. Thus, one would know in advance if it would land head or tail."
But we do not know all of these details and in our ignorance it looks like random.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
natasha nikulina 50+
The classical coin-toss and the quantum double slit interference
experiments are explained using the involvement of the observer.
The results are unpredictable, but doesn't mean that "quantum processes are truly random "
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Chris Kelly 20+
Is it your contention that, because it is "widely believed" among physicists that it must be true?
By what measure do you define "widely believed"?
If they are not taking every variable into consideration, (and they are not), then they're using the word "random" incorrectly and in a misleading way.
What "most physicists believe" is influenced by their understanding of the brain in regard to consciousness; they attribute consciousness to physical matter, which is an erroneous premise to begin with.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
natasha nikulina 50+
Again, you are right, but not quite right :)
Bell's theorem disproved the idea of locality. What Einstein called ''spooky action at a distance '' appeared to be a feature of nature or cosmos
( order).
Random walk in quantum physics turned to be a new type of phenomenon called 'quantum walk'.
If you are interested you may check out here
http://thefutureofthings.com/news/7596/random-walk-in-quantum-physics.html
Krisztián Pintér 200+
if we subscribe to that, we should conclude that our world is indeed random. it is its nature.
however, arthur fine presented an argument that the measurements supporting bell's theorem might be flawed. if they indeed are, the bell theorem might be false, and the door is reopened to non-random models of the world.
natasha nikulina 50+
As it was said: we test ourselves ! It means, that we know intuitively what we need to be explained rationally.
"As above, so below" was said not by rational mind and not for rational mind, you can sense truth here and science could be very helpful backing it up .
What can you say about this mind blowing video ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfeoE1arF0I&feature=related
It reminds me the zen koan : is it the wind moving or is it the flag? The monk answers, neither, its your mind that is moving.
Cheers
Krisztián Pintér 200+
no, we can not sense truth. we can, on a level, sense our own mental frames. but we surely can't feel how objects work in the universe. the universe continues to show us how weird it is. in the universe, time is dependent on speed, particles can be two places at the same time, mindless processes create structure and things like that. our universe is queer.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_our_queer_universe.html
natasha nikulina 50+
I don' reject your views :)
but
"...only logic and observations can tell true and false apart. so you can believe, if you want, that no reasoning can have any effect on me."
SOCRATES : What Plato is about to say is false.
PLATO : Socrates has spoken truly.
It is self-referential conundrum that shows the limitation of logic and reasoning.
There is no 'true' or 'false', but different descriptions of the same thing on different levels of understanding ,like Newton's gravity as a force and Einstein's curvature of spacetime.
The question remains though : what are the force carriers ? So, we are dealing with effect, having no idea about the cause. To suggest that effect appeared from randomness would contradict logic, everyday experience and yes , intuition.
"...no, we can not sense truth."
I can :)
And I am a perfectly ordinary human being, I can't know the truth, for you can't stop being hungry smelling the food. But such moments deeply colour the thinking and bring some clarity, the correspondences become obvious, and you start to see how everything, I do mean ,everything is connected. The very idea of randomness kisses you goodbye :).
BTW, no contradiction with science here, for randomness in science is defined as 'not useful information', hence it is not absence of order but absence of recognition.
How I can prove 'order' ?
- Quantum entanglement.( maybe:) Cause and effect is one thing, they are bound together and separated by by spacetime, which is 'samsara' illusion of the mind. Squeezed between cause and effect in no real space and time in its own illusion mind has invented randomness , funny, isn't it ?
And let's not call it 'debate', i don't state anything, we are just thinking on line and share our thoughts and I am grateful for your sharing.
Thanks !
natasha nikulina 50+
OK, Krisztian, as it was said many times: everyone is on his own path.
Good luck with yours !
Thanks for the conversation !
Chris Kelly 20+
Natasha,
When the mind is closed, the status of the door doesn't matter. Those who revere (and post links to) Dawkins are as rigid in their dogma as any evangelist ... there's simply no reasoning with those who fear changing their paradigm.
Ever wonder when terms such as "queer" and "random" have become acceptable as 'scientific' terminology?
In all my studies of consciousness, I've never seen it referred to in such intellectually lazy terms.
Peace.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Chris Kelly 20+
As a Buddhist, you should have some understanding of what constitutes "consciousness" so let me ask you two questions.
1. Is consciousness physical?
2. How many levels of consciousness are there?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
1. have no idea.
2. have no idea, but i'm almost sure the question does not make sense
however. as a buddhist, i'm aware that there is a thing called samsara. for simplicity, we can call it "world". samsara is the thing we see if we look around. does randomness exist in samsara? i don't know. it might exist. it might not. there are people who dedicated their lives to study samsara. they claim that things look like there is randomness in it. it is not sure.
however. you claimed that you know there is no randomness. so it is a good time for you to prove that. are you up to it?
Chris Kelly 20+
The ecosystem 'proves' the connectivity in life; the circular dependency of one thing to another. "As above, so below" ... what is true of the natural world is also true of the supernatural world.
When observing a rainbow, we refer to it as one thing ... one rainbow. We can observe seven distinct colors yet we also know it encompasses the entire spectrum of color. Still, we consider it to be one rainbow. The human body is like this. It is (seemingly) one body, yet it is made up of seven 'minds' ... seven 'levels' of physical 'consciousness' and three more levels 'above' us which is referred to as the Godhead. The trinity. The crown. These ten elements make up the sephirot on the human Tree of Life, Kabbalistically speaking.
Human beings are septenary in nature, as our 'being' is more than physical. We are energy beings and this energy has been discussed in every ancient scripture; it is the same energy which is measured and photographed by modern science.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
and one more note: i don't say there is no cause and effect. i say you can not prove that there is no randomness in the world. see the difference?
Chris Kelly 20+
The Vedas teach of something called the Chakra System. It explains the energy system of the human being. There are seven 'key' or 'central' chakras, aligned down the path of the spine. They are spinning vortices that energize and build the physical body. They are in direct correspondence to the rainbow, in that the indigo is at the 'crown', and red is at the 'root'.
This energy system is supported by another type of energy which have direct correspondence to the chakras. It is referred to as the etheric body or aura and it is this 'body' which we experience as our 'physical senses'. The etheric body is a subtle form of mass which is the subconscious level of mind also known as the soul.
It has been photographed using Kirlian photography. It has been measured via EEG and EKG machines. It has been measured by 'frequency' of Hertz as 'brainwaves'.
If you're standing in line and 'sense' someone standing 'too close' to you, it is this subtle body we are experiencing. We aren't being touched physically, yet we 'feel' or 'sense' the presence ... this is the sixth of our seven senses. Most people only acknowledge the five senses they can associate with the physical being. Many people experience their sixth sense without realizing what it is. More of us acknowledge our seventh sense by the word 'intuition'.
Like a rainbow, we have seemingly distinct levels of mind vibration which relate to colors which are observed as the aura.
The aura is a set of subtle bodies that completely surround and pass through the physical body of every living thing. Modern science refers to it as the electromagnetic field, so you know it's been measured. It's been referred to as brainwaves, and measured in Hertz. It too, is referred to as the soul, so you see, it is not a 'religious' connotation, it's a psychological one as it is the subconscious level of the mind. The mind is not the brain. It is processed through the brain, not generated by it.
Chris Kelly 20+
The fundamental flaw of modern science is in believing the brain to be a generator, when it is a processor. It received and transmits, but does not generate. Thoughts and emotions are generated by the mind, not the brain. The mind activates the brain just as electricity activates an appliance. Without the electricity, without the soul, the body of consciousness, the brain is a useless piece of meat.
If you understand the relationship between brainwaves and the 'measured' states of consciousness, (Alpha, Beta, Delta, Theta, Gamma), then you can see the relationship between the states of consciousness and their effects on the physical organism.
The Vedas speak of the chakra system, modern science measures it as the electromagnetic field. Mystics refer to it as the aura, Christians call it soul and psychology deigns it the sub-conscious mind.
It is the same elephant.
When physicists start to take ALL levels of consciousness into consideration when trying to understand how waves collapse when observed, then it will stop using erroneous terms such as "queer" and "randomness" to define that which is "structured" and "ordered".
natasha nikulina 50+
It so resonates with my understanding (!!!), though I don't know a half of what you do !
Thank you very much !!!
P.S. I think, science is changing and changing fast. "queer" and "random" are just middle terms between 'objectivity ' and 'reverence' , 'wonder' .
We are approaching the Age of Reason. I truly believe so :)
Vidyardhi Nanduri
There lies a higher dimensional knowledge - the origins- cosmology vedas interlinks.
One should search the subjects in depth or support original works to avoid confusion.
To mislead is very easy but to identify the spirit of enlightenment needs
concentration, meditation and Dedication- prerequisites for advancement.
UNITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS-OM- IN SCIENCE, RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY {An Introduction](Revised Feb. 2002)
(Reg No: TX 5-574-909 d/- May 14,2002 ) (No# Pages 100,Figures 17).
ISBN: 978-1-257-99508-0 publisher- LULU....ebook
COSMOLOGY VEDAS INTERLINKS-BOOKS INFORMATION May 2011
[ISBN:978-1-257-96228-0]
BOOKS BY VIDYARDHI NANDURI http://vidyardhicosmology.blogspot.com/
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Murshid Markan
Penrose is working hard to get the solution to the randomness we find in the characteristics of photon... and if he succeeds in solving it and gets a definite position of a photon at a particular moment of time... then we might get the same in our mind... means we can get clarity in our thoughts by increasing our consciousness (decreasing the randomness).... here comes the answer for this problem in human mind respect...
We need to build a strong consciousness... that means we need to build microtubules larger than before we want enormous amount of information flow in our mind and stores in these long tubes of information... the microtubules..
People start working on the consciousness to get close to enormous information... may be we get close to positive poles by this...
Anhad Kashyap
Gurinder Ahluwalia 10+
Murshid Markan
Now, if we discuss about the microtubules these are the combination of protein tubulins and these carry the photons of information charge... the microtubules form and disintegrate on its own... the time between the making and the disintegration is the time we have charges of consciouness or the flow of truth or the real information...
When the doctor gives you anesthesia he actually stop the making of these microtubules and hence you loose consciousness....
This is one part of my answer...
The other part says..
when our human mind contains neurons, charge (electrons), photons then how our brain different form the other atoms and composite elements of atom in the world.
the photons or electrons in our brain should work in the same way as the photons, electrons outside our human mind should work..
Gurinder Ahluwalia 10+
Murshid Markan
Allan Macdougall 50+
But is there any such thing as certainty? Future knowledge as yet has no roots in our consciousness, so has to depend on something other than what science gives us, in order to courageously depict 'what could be', rather than to safely grasp 'what is'.
It is precisely the "far-fetched flights of imagination" that moves idle, stagnating knowledge into new territory.
Gerald O'brian 50+
And neural activity is never random.
All this is pseudo-science, hasty conclusions to mysterious phenomena, and yet another attempt to reconcile sex-life and protons, happiness and gravity, etc...
Murshid Markan
The point can be explained here with some relevance shown to the brain activity that are defined under the protein tubulins... if we somehow reduce the quantum state switching in the brain as per the ORCH-OR theory says the BING !! the moment the superposition is reduced and we get a one state microtubule that state the certainty of the protein tubulin can be deduced..
So i want to relate the double slit experiment to give brain quantum states of protein tubulin a certainty and hence consciousness attained..