 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
socratus
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 12/30/2006 16:53 |   | | | | | | | | | Subconsciousness and Quantum theory.
Some psychologists compare our consciousness with iceberg.
The small visible part of this iceberg is our logical consciousness.
And the unseen (underwater) greater part of the iceberg is
our subconsciousness. Therefore they say, the man uses
only 10% of possibility of his brain.
And if it so, why doesn,t anybody teach us how
to develop our subconsciousness.
I think it is because there are few people who understand
that the processes of subconsciousness are connected
with quantum processes. The subconsciousness theory
closely united with quantum theory.
These quantum processes which take place in lifeless
(inanimate) nature also take place in our brain.
Our brain can be the laboratory in which we can
test the truth of quantum theory.
=============
1. Nonlinear dynamic process.
2. Vacuum process.
3. Superconductive process.
4. Holographic process.
5. etc.
=================
http://www.socratus.com
| | |
| | |
tkorrovi
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 12/30/2006 19:34 | | | | | | | | | | Imho, subconsciousness is simply anything which we cannot express in words, and we cannot express most of our thinking process in words.
| | |
| | |
socratus
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 1/1/2007 16:28 | | | | | | | | | | Dr. G. Sergeev (admiral of navy USSR)
in the beginning of 80 years wrote:
‘Experiences of study the electrical power of a human brain
show that the brain of the man is capable to create effect
of superconductivity similar to electrical phenomena
in a lifeless nature ‘.
| | |  http://www.socratus.com | | |
| | |
Nick
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 1/1/2007 16:53 | | | | | | | | | | The quantum avenue, is to the AI discussion, what spiritualism was to criminology. Essentially it misses the point entirely and just offers novelty which uncreative theorists eagerly accept as a substitute for valid theory. AI theory and all the practical efforts thereof are all symptoms of an intellectual misunderstanding.
Consciousness, awareness, sentience or thought, call it what you will, is merely an inert physical process much like a simple chemical reaction. Just because we believe we are aware, fundamentally, does NOT mean that we are. The mental representations, memories, cognitive functions, so taken for granted as awareness, are all reducible to deterministically observable mechanistic characteristics. Once you abandone the attempt to explain a thing from the point of view of the thing being observed, you will make a leap in understanding. A cow will never understand itself in the wider semantic context as can a biologist. In a similar way, it is near impossible for the majority of humans to make the leap which leads them to this, " A being is just a collective of physical parts which include a belief in its own awareness". The belief in consciousness is just an inert element of the system which facilitates evolutionary survival through heightened mental calculation, planning, organisation and social relationism. Belief in awareness is identical in nature to a simple hypertext file in a pc, it is just a part of the biological programme that humans have developed to enhance controlled processing. As an inert being, i know that it is an illusion that i appear to be both the subject and object in a recalled time specific event, i.e a thought. Getting passed this is achieved when the thinker realises that 'awareness' as we conceive it, does not require sentience or any higher functioning. The subject realises that there is no such thing as 'he', or the thought which he thought he just had. Just a memory buffer, computational functionality and a model system in which the animal stores a persistent representation of memory signals from sensory data, which for the 'aware' animals, include a group of reflexive old sense date which collectively describe that animal's belief in its own awareness.
As i say it is almost impossible to convey this expanation fully, to even those educated to doctorate level or beyond. People are steeped in roles, norms, values and social systema, which to them constitute a very believed in world. All the things which make up their apparent world are socially constructed and as such arbitrary. The world is reducible to quanta, on all levels. Happiness, hate, excitement, government, police, depression, love, anticipation, ambition and every thought you ever had, was a meaningless collection of energy, chemicals and quarks. The very need to live, an illusion and the person you thought you were, a device of a meat based automaton. Once the animal understands its own non-existence, it vanishes. Much like if you study a chemical compound, by defining it in terms of its component parts, it essentially it dissappears via the act of description. In much the same way, a human who successfully understand that consciousness is an illusion and that there is no awareness to replicate with AI, vanishes in the description. I am not having these thoughts and you indeed are not reading them, for we both are just simple facets of an mechanistic biological date record which has helped with the avoidance of extinction. Be careful in explaining anything too fully as human life depends on our various misunderstandings of our lives. Remove our illusions and you cease to exist in any functional way, leaving just an actor amongst a cast of millions who is the only one on the stage who knows that it is only a giant causational theatre performance.
Many thanks, Nick.
Happy new year.
| | |
| | |
tkorrovi
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 1/1/2007 17:49 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Nick wrote @ 1/1/2007 4:53:00 PM:
Consciousness, awareness, sentience or thought, call it what you will, is merely an inert physical process much like a simple chemical reaction.
| |
You may be right, but then, we don't know even so much about physical processes. The least about something which is intrinsic to all physical processes, like interconnectedness, which also must be changing interconnectedness. It even has been suggested by scientists, that even dimensions are not fundamental properties of the physical processes, dimensions emerge due to interactions of the particles, and that nothing really, even time, exists separately from the particles. So if it is the way you said, then human mind is a manifestation of processes inherent to the universe, and it is a real miracle then that these processes can produce something so advanced as human mind. This is inherent to philosophy, if you argue something, and there may be the most unexpected conclusions, even only because we have to consider everything.
BTW, about the message before that, don't know that study, but at least interconnectedness should by some studies appear very easily, all we need is more than two interacting bodies. And superconductivity has in some studies being explained by interconnectedness, so this at least suggests that in something so complicated as brain, superconductivity may occur, the other question is, what importance this would have for consciousness studies. So at least, it is not a "spirituality" up to that point, though some further conclusions from that may or may not be spirituality.
Happy New Year to all!
| | |
| | |
lordjakian
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 2/23/2007 19:07 | | | | | | | | | | To even compare "Awareness" and "Human-like Conciousness" is foolish beyond belief. Awareness is only the ability to react. The universe is "Aware" of all the energy and matter that is within it and applies the universal properties towards itself. This does not imply understanding but only that it is capable of reacting.
"Be careful in explaining anything too fully as human life depends on our various misunderstandings of our lives."
Life began as a creation of patterns. As long as there are patterns that break there will always be misunderstandings. It is the power of life to recognize patterns and find advantage in them. It is this that gives life meaning and allows the enjoyment of it and distress when a pattern breaks and a new one can not be found. To call this search for useful knowledge meaningless, to call the mind an illusion, you are merely breaking the pattern to that of "0". If you truly believe in this perfect pattern, then beware of its embrace when you finally reach it, for it is commonly known as "death".
"As i say it is almost impossible to convey this expanation fully, to even those educated to doctorate level or beyond."
Bah, whats the use? I am speaking in terms of life to a man who thinks only in terms of death. It is like explaining values to a computer that only multiplies with zero's.
| | |
| | |
Nick
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 3/23/2007 13:52 | | | | | | | | | | Your last reply demonstrates clearly that thankfully you are well rooted within the cultural illusion. You obviously value life and i'm extremely happy for you that you do. Everything you express, is in relation to conventional reality. Awareness, human like consciousness, it's irrelevant. You simply point out, that we have differing definitions of those terms and then castigate me, because i do not share your particular definition. I am not in your head and you not in mine, thus we can often mean different things by the same words. Precisely the reason that Psychology has spent almost its entire existence since Wundt and Locke, attempting to define everything that moves.
Your last line gets to the point, but i get the impression, that you've arrived at it without really getting what i have said. Yes the line of thought is very closely linked to death in my theorem. Understanding the nature of consciousness is a form of death. You cease to exist, the person you thought you were, and every person you've ever known, dies at that moment.
There is no necessary reason why expanded understanding within the human sciences, leads to increased happiness. Indeed precisely the opposite is often evident. Please don't think that i'm being smug or arrogant when i say that people should avoid the deep understanding that i have 'achieved'. I mean it sincerely, we are driven to expand our grasp of consciousness, but where that understanding ends up, is not where we perhaps thought it would be and can have dire unintended consequences.
I am glad for you that you do not get what i've said and sorry if any of what i've said is offensive or insulting, i'm terrible at politeness and tact. Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to reply, it's much appreciated.
Best wishes, Nick.
| | |
| | |
Justathought
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 3/23/2007 16:39 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Nick wrote @ 1/1/2007 4:53:00 PM:
The quantum avenue, is to the AI discussion, what spiritualism was to criminology. Essentially it misses the point entirely and just offers novelty which uncreative theorists eagerly accept as a substitute for valid theory. AI theory and all the practical efforts thereof are all symptoms of an intellectual misunderstanding.
| |
Amen to that.
But why so negative in your later post? Ofcourse it takes a strong mind not to fall into one of the many pitfalls and mind-traps this kind of hobby has in abundance.
In my view there is absolutely no need to make any disparaging remarks about concepts that, howevever vague and ethereal, everybody seems to come back to at one point or another, indicating there probably is more than just the parts - but that's a different discussion really.
On topic: I think the semi-random processes in brain activity that can be summed up as subconsciousness, and quantum-mechanics only share a side-relation in the sense they are both essentially describing phenomena from a statistical perspective. Any relationship more or less ends there. There is no direct 'hidden link' in our brain circuitry that relies on direct quantum phenomena. That's indeed a huge cop-out.
| | |
| | |
lordjakian
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 3/24/2007 16:07 | | | | | | | | | | Hey Nick =)
I simply think of the discussion between differing opinions as an interesting game. A fencing of words. If you consider my style of writing as brash then you are correct.
Reading an opinion can be dangerous, in the sense that if you read something you might be insulted by it. You can either ignore it or respond. If you choose to play....thats up to you. :)
LOL!!!!
I just noticed that this idea of yours is related to two other forum threads that I have posted on. It all relates to the same thing.
Fun, fun.
| | |
| | |
Nick
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 3/26/2007 13:39 | | | | | | | | | | Sorry Justathought if i came across as negative. Text is terrible for language cues. When i say what i have, i am attempting to highlight a general tendency of people, in all fields, to put a great deal of faith in fashionable ideas. In simple terms philofmind is to consciousness what an inquisitive mechanic is to an unknown Railway engine. We do not need necessarily to understand the metalurgy of the pistons, in order to grasp the fundemental reason of how the steam exchanges energy with the rotary parts and leads to traction of the unit. Consciousness(or rather the belief in it) is a macrofunctional systemic feature. Quantum may eventually lead to deeper background information on the cognitive nuts and bolts, but to understand how to build a coldcarbon mind, it isn't useful or necessary to the project. As i've mentioned before, the human perspective is a limiting barrier to grasping how the mind does what we think it does. Part of being human is not understanding what we see as consciousness. Sorry if i'm 'enthusiastic' in my criticism, it's not intended.
| | |
| | |
Nick
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 3/26/2007 14:00 | | | | | | | | | | I agree Lord, sometimes the fencing game is the greatest thing of all. Ever thought that one of the posters on the AI boards might turn out to be a not altogether backward chatbot?
| | |
| | |
lordjakian |
| | | | | | posted 3/27/2007 20:14 | | | | | | | | | | I think most of my replies are silly enough to where I could probaly figure out whether it was a canned response, backwards or not.
| | |
| | |
socratus
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 5/15/2007 18:33 | | | | | | | | | | Many philosophers use a “law of tautology” to prove their ideas.
Happy philosophizing.
Some mathematicians try to find methods of
mathematically modeling consciousness.
They must take attention of following mathematical game.
=================.
1.
The quote by R.P. Feynman.
“ Immediately you would like to know where this number
for a coupling comes from:
is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms?
Nobody knows.
It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics:
a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.
You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number,
and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil."
We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally
to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know
what kind of dance to do on the computer
to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!“
===========
2.
The quote by Arthur Eddington.
We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two,
because one and one are two. We are finding
that we must learn a great deal more about `and'.
=====.
Why?
Because one is can be different from one.
Take electron- symbol (e)
Take proton - symbol (p)
They are absolute different particles.
And interaction between electron and proton
is not the same than interaction between
proton and electron:
ep ≠ pe ( non - commutative algebra,
Heisenberg and his Uncertainty principle.)
===================
Another example:
A thing called “shoe” and a thing called “ sock” along with
the operator ”and” which combines “shoe” and “sock” things.
If you play around with it, you will find
that the “ order “ is fairly important.
============================
| | | http://www.socratus.com | | |
| | |
socratus
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 5/16/2007 16:18 | | | | | | | | | | Abridged version of Peter Russell's book 'From Science to God'
/ Reality and Consciousness:/
http://twm.co.nz/prussell.htm
| | |
| | |
lordjakian |
| | | | | | posted 5/28/2007 04:52 | | | | | | | | | | Socratus....Have you yet attempted a pratical application of any of your ideas? I agree with some of what you say and I am curious to know if you created anything with the knowledge you speak of.
| | |
| | |
socratus
[Guest] |
| | | | | | posted 8/12/2007 16:19 | | | | | | | | | | Where does the information come from?
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – were assembled in a “single point”.
It means that all information also was assembled in a "single point".
And then there was " big bang " and all information flew to bits
in different sides.
Suppose , that every bits of a "single point", every particle
of a "single point" is the owner of some information.
Then there are two possibilities:
a) every particle has the own information and after 20 billions years
they accidentally united and created everything including a man.
The aim of it is to observe all accidental possibilities.
b) in the beginning every particle has zero information .
Question :" How does zero information further arrive to a
very high informational level ? "
========.
If you go on way a) - so maybe yes, maybe no
you will pass through a forest of knowledge .
If you go on way b) - you will pass a forest of
theoretical knowledge along a straight road.
========.
Why I say so?
The visible matter of world is only a small part of all mass in the Universe.
More then 90% of the matter in the Universe is unseen," dark matter ".
Nobody knows what it is and therefore it is possible to say that more
then 90% of information is hiding and unknown to us.
So our aim must be to study "dark particles " or…..
………..
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct : there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see at first, that electron does, it interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen. This is simplest design,
which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man.
Really, it is not beautiful, is it ?
Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles "
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
=======================
Was I mistaken? No.
Because according to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children!
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
========.
Why does only electron have quant of information?
Maybe does proton also have quant of information?
No. Single proton has no quant of information.
Why?
Because information can be transfered only by
electromagnetic fields. And we don’t have a theory
about protono-magnetic fields.
==========.
Once upon a time, in the beginning, there was
one "single point " accidentally.
Then it has accidentally blown up
Big Bang " has taken place.
It was the reason of accidental creation of some thousands
kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles.
Then atom of hydrogen was formed accidentally
Then complex atom was formed accidentally.
Then stars were formed accidentally.
Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally.
Then the fauna was formed accidentally.
Then the animal kingdom was formed accidentally.
Then the man was created accidentally.
And this man can accidentally think logically.
But of course, unfortunately, not always.
==============.
Many years ago man has accustomed some wild
animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.)
and has made them domestic ones.
But the man understands badly the four-footed friends.
In 1897 J. J. Thomson discovered new particle - electron.
Gradually man has accustomed electron to work for him.
But the man does not understand what an electron is.
==============
For my peasant logic at first it is better to understand
the closest thing (for example an electron) and then
to study the far away space and particles
(for example dark, black, virtual …etc particles).
============.
Best wishes.
http://www.socratus.com
| | | http://www.socratus.com | | |
|
|
|
|
|
