Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos  Exactly how do you think Stapp's proposals eliminate this "problem"?
|
Well, first of the picture QT paints of how the universe works seems to me to be much more "mind-like" than "matter-like". This is to me independent of Stapp's theory. Further, my opinion on the whole consciousness topic has much in common with David. Assuming that mindless particles and forces give rise to my experiences and consciousness only leads to paradoxes. In Stapp's theory (and already hinted at in the orthodox QT) the universe is psychophysical, meaning that it has both physical and experiential qualities on a fundamental level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos How does process 0 help?
Are you sure your pleasure with his proposal doesn't arise solely from an emotional reaction?
~~ Paul |
Process Zero is the aspect of the universe that has the experiential quality, and the process that is associated with our feeling of free choice, intention, attention, awareness etc. In his current theory I understand it as something fundamental. Process Zero is needed to control the timing and frequency of process 1, wich again is needed to solve the measurement problem.
You asked if objects can't do this, and the answer seems to be no. Decoherence, which is this interaction with other objects, does not solve the measurement problem beyond FAPP. That is why all these strange interpretations of QT exists. Some try to ignore the problem, some try to postulate infinite many worlds, some try to make the future influence the present etc. But only two current theories I know of take consciousness seriously as something real in itself. That is Stapp's theory and Penrose's theory. Stapp postulates process zero, Penrose postulates that some proposed fundamental spacetime self collapse-process of the universe, having to do with quantum gravity, is connected to consciousness.
Like David I think there is something to psi. If we want a theory of the universe that can include such phenomena, I think something like what Penrose and Stapp proposes is needed. From how I understand these two theories I think Stapp has come closest.
Does my interest in those theories arise solely from an emotional reaction? No, but I'll be the first to admit that I have emotions and that they probably factor in. But such is the case for everyone else also, even you
. When something so seriously violates my intuition of my basic being as current mainstream "theories" of consciousness do, along with the fact that many common and empirically investigated phenomena do not fit in either (like psi), I look for something better.
I'm not that a big fan of theories. Theories are always replaced at a later stage, but can give rise to new perspectives, predictions to be falsified and ideas for new experiments. Experimental results are theory independent, but of course subject to interpretation.
I think I'll jump out of the debate now. Have fun
