Jump to content
Science Forums

Quantum Mechanics And The "hard Problem" Of Consciousness


arkain101

Recommended Posts

I believe I have resolved the difficulty of the problem known as "the hard problem of consciousness".

While I appreciate your explication of the problem, I do not think that you have resolved it. Roping in an irrelevant but revered old Buddhist wearing a sleeveless bathrobe who doesn't have even Larry the Cable Guy's fat arms, and whose armpits probably smelled the same, really killed any point you were trying to make. Platitudes from politically adept religionists do not solve problems, even if they wear cut-off bathrobes. We can be grateful that he did not display his legs. And no matter-- he'd be just as irrelevant in a tux.

 

Your efforts deserve applause, nonetheless. Thank you for even being aware of the consciousness problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We just have to wrap their minds around the fact that everything is connected, even our bodies, all things all energy.

 

We have a god given right to change our view on reality. We don't have to obey the duality philosophy we grew up with.. and although I don't advocate stirring the pot in society, I'm saying we are free to experiment with different world views..

 

We can try seeing the universe as though everything is a quantum vibration.. the air is in your blood.. I am in your head as you read these words.. you're having chemical reactions in your brain because you read these words.

 

My neurons affect your neurons... we are a unified quantum fluctuation, intelligently observing the creation.. ever seeking its most fundamental perspective.

 

Our ego doesn't like this, but we can work to understand this if we let go of all greed.

 

Please, get real. If I read a comic strip, my neurons fire away. Likewise if I watch a Packer game and get upset over dumb plays and bad calls. When I can stand to watch Bill O'Reilly blow another interview, my neurons get busy. When I go out country dancing, and find myself in the company of a good dancing lady, on the floor with a good two-step driving our dance, neurons fire. On all of these separate occasions, they fire away in different sections of my brain. Big deal and so what?--- that's what neurons do.

 

Making an intellectual big deal of it is, IMO, a tad pretentious. Forget the "unified quantum fluctuation" silliness. That's simply a turn of phrase invented by a crowd of overpaid physicists who have not the slightest clue as to the nature of consciousness, who use such obfuscating verbiage to either confuse or impress the intellectual wanna-be's. Do you really want to be one of them?

 

My ego is simply my brain, which I try to use for brain-level work. I don't care much about my ego. It does its job-- I do mine. I expect your comments to trigger neurons in my brain and trigger ego-related programs that I've chosen to retain for their survival value. If your comments failed to trigger neurons, I could not post to you because I would not know of your existence.

 

Make a big deal, little deal, or even better--- no deal of this. Our brains work the way they work. And I am interested in brains in the same sense that I am interested in vehicles. They are machines with a job to do. The job is to get me and any cargo I bring along from Point A to Point B in a safe and expeditious manner. My job is to chose points A and B, the cargo, and my particular definition of "expeditious."

 

Your quantum vibrations can tag along in the trunk or pickup bed, or be dragged behind like the annoying dog in "National Lampoon's Vacation," or even better, wiggle all by themselves along the wayside. Have you taken a course in QM, that might give you some physics behind your opinions? Or have you simply read Gary Zukov?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MacPhee

Platitudes from politically adept religionists do not solve problems, even if they wear cut-off bathrobes. We can be grateful that he did not display his legs.

 

A good point. People who set themselves up in authority, and try to tell others what to think, what to do. Their words may sound very impressive. But would we be so impressed - would we take them so seriously - if they had to deliver their words with no clothes on.

 

Perhaps all posters on this forum, should be required to display a nude photograph of themselves on their posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well..

 

You see. I'm trying to point out the act of talking about it creates the confusion. It's a silly question, what is consciousness, because it gets silly results.

 

If you're up and at it, doing a skill, performing an art you being it.. not lost in it.

 

Have you taken a course in QM, that might give you some physics behind your opinions? Or have you simply read Gary Zukov?

 

I feel quite comfortable with physics in general yes.

 

I have not taken a course. I took the pleasure in finding ways to discover things for myself as much as possible. That way, really understanding it first hand, the eureka's, and the pleasure of mystery and puzzles.

 

I don't expect some kind of profound response.

 

I'm just saying that the hard problem is because its a silly question.

 

It can not be intellectualized it must be experienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good point. People who set themselves up in authority, and try to tell others what to think, what to do. Their words may sound very impressive. But would we be so impressed - would we take them so seriously - if they had to deliver their words with no clothes on.

 

Perhaps all posters on this forum, should be required to display a nude photograph of themselves on their posts.

 

Your idea has considerable merit. In honor of your genius, you get to go first. Then "Buffy," because Moderators should be fairly represented. In the meantime I'll be checking through my babyhood photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well..

 

You see. I'm trying to point out the act of talking about it creates the confusion. It's a silly question, what is consciousness, because it gets silly results.

 

If you're up and at it, doing a skill, performing an art you being it.. not lost in it.

 

 

 

I feel quite comfortable with physics in general yes.

 

I have not taken a course. I took the pleasure in finding ways to discover things for myself as much as possible. That way, really understanding it first hand, the eureka's, and the pleasure of mystery and puzzles.

 

I don't expect some kind of profound response.

 

I'm just saying that the hard problem is because its a silly question.

 

It can not be intellectualized it must be experienced.

 

Trying to study consciousness from the perspective of a bad theory gets bad results, like trying to understand thermodynamics from the perspective of phlogiston theory. Since consciousness exists, a theory that fails to explain it is, by definition and the experience of science history, a crummy theory.

 

The really fine physicists that I have known have both intellectualized and experienced their science. These are the men and women who take the trouble to master their craft, You would do well by yourself to expand your understanding by learning from such men.

 

I have a brother who was born with natural artistic talent. He was encouraged in H.S. to learn and study more, but he did not. He has been painting crummy pictures for 40 years, wasting oils and canvas, because he is too arrogant, too convinced of his own natural abilities, to accept advice or insight from a better artist. You come across very much like him. Is that really what you want--- to spend the remaining years of your life pretending to know some physics, confusing mysticism with physics, blowing off ideas that you do not understand instead of trying to understand them, while lesser minds are passing you by with study, and becoming greater minds?

 

(I could just as well be writing this siht to myself!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care much about my ego.

If this is true, can you explain why you have it on display so much?

 

 

Perhaps all posters on this forum' date=' should be required to display a nude photograph of themselves on their posts. [/quote']The camera hasn't been built that can tolerate exposure to my nude form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true, can you explain why you have it on display so much?

Look at it this way. Suppose that I owned the original Mona Lisa. I would want to protect that lovely work of art, so I would not put it on open display. I'd not even want anyone to know that I owned it, lest I live in fear that it would be stolen, or even worse, defaced. I'd squirrel it away somewhere in a place where only I and trusted friends could admire it.

 

If I cared about my ego, I'd not put it on open display where it is freely available for insult.

 

 

The camera hasn't been built that can tolerate exposure to my nude form.

That strikes me as an especially interesting notion, in light of your comment about my ego.

 

I've done plenty of regular photography and some pioneering work in digital imaging, and I safely promise you that cameras are objective and neutral machines. If you don't believe me, go park your naked posterior on a copy machine and push the start button. If that does not convince you, visit your nearest, uh, "Adult" video store and buy something with the words, "fat, grannies, obese, flour, and Crisco" in the title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....The hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers 1995) is the problem of explaining the relationship between physical phenomena, such as brain processes, and experience (i.e., phenomenal consciousness, or mental states/events with phenomenal qualities or qualia)
. I see no problem in understanding the relationships, only the details. First there must be a physical phenomena available for perception. Next is a transformation of the external phenomena to physical phenomena associated with humans, such as brain processes that involve neurons, chemicals, etc. The result of the interaction of these two physical phenomena (first external second internal) is what results in human experience, which is a third phenomena we give the label consciousness. Seems easy to explain the relationships, ...ALL IS PHENOMENA that has begin with something that exists as a physical phenomenon (out-there) that continues to exist in a transformed phenomenon quantum state inside the faculty we call human consciousness.

 

....differentiate the ego from the source self.
What exactly does this mean to you ? Please define (1) ego self and (2)source self

and discuss how they each come to be and differ. If no logical difference can be found, then we lapse into word games and your concept of source self is nothing more than ego wearing a mask.

 

Many questions are logically silly, such as what type of food does Santa use to feed the raindeer. But, to ask questions about ego does not seem silly or useless at all to me, so I have no idea the point you are trying to make with that comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...