TED Conversations

Murshid Markan

Alcatel-Lucent

This conversation is closed.

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.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 9 2012: Natasha,

    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!
    • Jun 10 2012: I am not really sure what you folks are talking about but I do agree that the word "spirit" is not very helpful at this juncture in time, loaded as it is with religious connotations.
      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!
      • thumb
        Jun 10 2012: Hi Mike,

        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.
        • Jun 11 2012: Hi, Craig !
          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.
      • Jun 11 2012: Mike !

        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 ? :)
        • Jun 13 2012: Hi Natasha and Craig. I am having semantic overload! I thought science was the empirical observation of matter and energy. If spirit is another word for matter and energy then it is a metaphor. A lovely and well-intentioned metaphor to be sure. As I see it the biggest stumbling block with science is/are pompous ass scientists who insist that what we cannot yet measure does not exist. And conversely the biggest problem with faithists is that they insist that there are things that exist without any proof to back it up (the Flying Spaghetti Monster for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster ).
          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.
      • Jun 13 2012: Hi, Mike !

        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 ! :)
        • Jun 13 2012: I was listening to this music video as I read your reply and it brought me to tears.
          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
        • Jun 13 2012: Natahsa

          "Is 'exotic' particle, " spooky action in a distance ", god's ( 'god damn ' ) particle or ghost particle any better ?"

          Brava! Brava! Brava!!!
      • Jun 13 2012: WOW ! John Butler is great ! But I don't hear Ocean there, it sounds like 'zigest' watched through the eyes of an infant :)
        Thanks for the link !
    • Jun 11 2012: Craig !
      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 !

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.