Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[GE Morton]

Er, no. The burden of proof rests with he who holds the affirmative.

"Up to date with metaphysics"? Which/whose metaphysics do you deem "up to date"?

If you were more up-to-date, you would know that you are asking for proof for something that was observed to be the case for every experiment ever carried out. Hence the measurement problem.

You seem to be confusing experimental physics with metaphysics. You made a claim about metaphysics, then attempt to defend it with a statement about physics.

You seem not have grasped the point you just quoted. So let me repeat it: that the phenomena are "showing" something (something beyond themselves) is an hypothesis, a theory of the phenomena. Which theory is another mental artifact.

Obviously, and? That wasn't the issue.

Then,

You still don't seem to understand the difference between the mental phenomena and what the mental phenomena are showing.

You acknowledge the point, then proceed to ignore it.

???

[Atla]

You seem to be confusing experimental physics with metaphysics. You made a claim about metaphysics, then attempt to defend it with a statement about physics.

Yes, seem, to some. No one really knows where to draw the line between physics and metaphysics when it comes to the measurement problem, or whether we can even fully do that (probably not), that's all part of the problem. The issues seem to be inherent to all experiments though, that's consistent. Though some will deny/ignore/overlook some of the issues, but they also do this consistently for all experiments.

Obviously, and? That wasn't the issue.

Then,

You still don't seem to understand the difference between the mental phenomena and what the mental phenomena are showing.

You acknowledge the point, then proceed to ignore it.

???

Because that's not relevant. Unless you want to argue that we should adopt a stupid Kantian limbo, where we aren't full-blown solipsists yet, but we also don't imbue the noumenon with any reality. A sort of quasi-solipsism.

[Atla]

Anyway, I don't usually recommend books, but this is in my opinion the best introduction to the measurement problem:
"Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (written by physicists)

It really gets across the issue of this perfect correlation/connection/whatever we want to call it, between mental content such as human choices, and states of the outside physical world, where the states can be irreconcilable with each other. Plus more stuff that's incompatible with dualistic philosophy, like non-separability and so on.

That's why most founders of QM turned to Eastern philosophy for answers. Anyway, these things I mention still only concern the easier parts of the measurement problem, they are probably resolvable via philosophy, just not really Western philosophy. Better to get through these philosophical issues before taking on the central problem(s).

[Faustus5]

Anyway, I don't usually recommend books, but this is in my opinion the best introduction to the measurement problem:
"Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (written by physicists)

In my experience, literally every time a physicist thinks they are qualified to discuss consciousness, and especially when they try to bring quantum physics into the mix, the result is pure garbage. No thanks.

[Pattern-chaser]

In my experience, literally every time a physicist thinks they are qualified to discuss consciousness, and especially when they try to bring quantum physics into the mix, the result is pure garbage.

Sir Roger Penrose, if no-one else, feels that QM offers a mechanism that might help to explain and understand thought, in general, and consciousness , in particular. Not that his opinion makes it true, of course, but it does seem to have merit....

[Atla]

Anyway, I don't usually recommend books, but this is in my opinion the best introduction to the measurement problem:
"Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (written by physicists)

In my experience, literally every time a physicist thinks they are qualified to discuss consciousness, and especially when they try to bring quantum physics into the mix, the result is pure garbage. No thanks.

The book doesn't discuss consciousness, it tries to describe what the quantum problem is. Anyway I agree you should skip it

[Pattern-chaser]

Anyway, I don't usually recommend books, but this is in my opinion the best introduction to the measurement problem:
"Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (written by physicists)

It really gets across the issue of this perfect correlation/connection/whatever we want to call it, between mental content such as human choices, and states of the outside physical world, where the states can be irreconcilable with each other. Plus more stuff that's incompatible with dualistic philosophy, like non-separability and so on.

Ah, so that's where your position on these matters originates. Your posts start to make more sense now. They're based on a book you read, and were impressed by. There's nothing wrong with that. This is where your supposed "refutation" of dualistic philosophy comes from, yes? And the reason you can't or won't expand upon your position is that it originates in this book, and you don't uunderstand it well enough to explain it to someone else, although you yourself are convinced by what you have read? I'm speculating, of course. But this explanation is so good that I'm inclined to stick with it.

[Atla]

Anyway, I don't usually recommend books, but this is in my opinion the best introduction to the measurement problem:
"Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness" by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner (written by physicists)

It really gets across the issue of this perfect correlation/connection/whatever we want to call it, between mental content such as human choices, and states of the outside physical world, where the states can be irreconcilable with each other. Plus more stuff that's incompatible with dualistic philosophy, like non-separability and so on.

Ah, so that's where your position on these matters originates. Your posts start to make more sense now. They're based on a book you read, and were impressed by. There's nothing wrong with that. This is where your supposed "refutation" of dualistic philosophy comes from, yes? And the reason you can't or won't expand upon your position is that it originates in this book, and you don't uunderstand it well enough to explain it to someone else, although you yourself are convinced by what you have read? I'm speculating, of course. But this explanation is so good that I'm inclined to stick with it.

In this form, no to all of them, besides the book simply states facts and doesn't attempt to come up with an answer. Like most others here, you don't seem to be cut out to keep up with modern science and metaphysics, so just skip it.

[Atla]

Seriously, I can't be expected to give a simple few-sentences demonstration of an issue that not even Nobel-prize winners in physics couldn't figure out for a century. Not just the answer, but what exactly the issue even is. You people are unbelievable.

[Faustus5]

Sir Roger Penrose, if no-one else, feels that QM offers a mechanism that might help to explain and understand thought, in general, and consciousness , in particular. Not that his opinion makes it true, of course, but it does seem to have merit....

He is actually one of the folks who I firmly believe has written nothing but useless garbage on the subject of consciousness. Literally the only reason he's taken seriously on this subject, about which he knows nothing and has had no training in, is because he's one of the greatest living physicists on the planet. And for some idiotic reason, people--especially physicists--seem to think that if you are a great physicist, somehow your opinions on other scientific matters outside of your expertise should carry more weight than they actually deserve.

The very basis of his entire argument is predicated on an absurd application of Godel's Theorem to a straw man version of AI which is supposed to prove that consciousness cannot be achieved by any algorithmic process. To make a long story short, GT only applies to a very specific set of algorithmic/computational processes satisfying a very strict series of conditions. If the algorithmic process one is talking about fails to fall into that category--as all AI projects do--then literally nothing that Godel revealed applies and the theorem becomes utterly and completely irrelevant. Godel's Theorem absolutely and unequivocally does not apply to the computational processes involved in artificial intelligence in the way his argument demands.

This is one of the rare times when an argument's failure is a matter of fact and not opinion, and this bogus argument is quite literally the only basis Penrose has for thinking there are special quantum mechanical processes at the heart of consciousness.

[Faustus5]

The book doesn't discuss consciousness, it tries to describe what the quantum problem is. Anyway I agree you should skip it

Then why put "consciousness" in the title? Just to attract unwary buyers who think they picking up yet another absurd New Age screed on the subject?

By the way, I'm never going to deny that quantum physics has introduced some extremely major and serious challenges to our understanding of reality which too many people do not appreciate. And while I'm generally reticent to allow metaphysics into any discussion (because 90% of the time, when you resort to metaphysics you've just basically given up), this is one topic where I just don't think you can avoid it. But I tend to see these challenges as relating to traditional Realism in science and reject the idea that quantum physics says anything about or involves consciousness in any interesting way.

Nevertheless, this area of physics really exposes some deep problems in how we model and understand everything around us and is absolutely worth studying.

[Atla]

The book doesn't discuss consciousness, it tries to describe what the quantum problem is. Anyway I agree you should skip it

Then why put "consciousness" in the title? Just to attract unwary buyers who think they picking up yet another absurd New Age screed on the subject?

By the way, I'm never going to deny that quantum physics has introduced some extremely major and serious challenges to our understanding of reality which too many people do not appreciate. And while I'm generally reticent to allow metaphysics into any discussion (because 90% of the time, when you resort to metaphysics you've just basically given up), this is one topic where I just don't think you can avoid it. But I tend to see these challenges as relating to traditional Realism in science and reject the idea that quantum physics says anything about or involves consciousness in any interesting way.

Nevertheless, this area of physics really exposes some deep problems in how we model and understand everything around us and is absolutely worth studying.

"Consciousness" is in the title, because physics seems to have encountered consciousness, whatever that means. Hence the measurement problem. The book isn't about a quantum mechanical explanation of consciousness, but about this encounter. As I said most people should just skip this, and stick to the outdated science.

For example Wigner put it bluntly: "it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness".

[Faustus5]

For example Wigner put it bluntly: "it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness".

Wigner was absolutely wrong and just about no one in the mainstream of science who actually knows what they are talking about takes these types of claims seriously anymore. It is complete and utter hogwash.

[Pattern-chaser]

Ah, so that's where your position on these matters originates. Your posts start to make more sense now. They're based on a book you read, and were impressed by. There's nothing wrong with that. This is where your supposed "refutation" of dualistic philosophy comes from, yes? And the reason you can't or won't expand upon your position is that it originates in this book, and you don't uunderstand it well enough to explain it to someone else, although you yourself are convinced by what you have read? I'm speculating, of course. But this explanation is so good that I'm inclined to stick with it.

In this form, no to all of them, besides the book simply states facts and doesn't attempt to come up with an answer. Like most others here, you don't seem to be cut out to keep up with modern science and metaphysics, so just skip it.

And yet I'm the one who has learned, and used, Schrodinger's wave equation, and you have, what, read a book? I'll stick with my working theory for now; it fits the evidence presented so far...

[Atla]

Ah, so that's where your position on these matters originates. Your posts start to make more sense now. They're based on a book you read, and were impressed by. There's nothing wrong with that. This is where your supposed "refutation" of dualistic philosophy comes from, yes? And the reason you can't or won't expand upon your position is that it originates in this book, and you don't uunderstand it well enough to explain it to someone else, although you yourself are convinced by what you have read? I'm speculating, of course. But this explanation is so good that I'm inclined to stick with it.

In this form, no to all of them, besides the book simply states facts and doesn't attempt to come up with an answer. Like most others here, you don't seem to be cut out to keep up with modern science and metaphysics, so just skip it.

And yet I'm the one who has learned, and used, Schrodinger's wave equation, and you have, what, read a book? I'll stick with my working theory for now; it fits the evidence presented so far...

Good luck with that. Your working theory doesn't fit the evidence, and guess why Schrödinger turned to the Vedas.