The Collective Placebo Effect? Collective Belief & Disbelief?

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Where does the orthodox theory say that human consciousness is the crux?

~~ Paul

I must have missed that bit too!

I guess that is what I get for reading texbooks rather than popular science books.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Where does the orthodox theory say that human consciousness is the crux?

~~ Paul

The orthodox interpretation talks of 'observations' which need human (or presumably animal) consciousness. Does anyone honestly think that the physicists at Copenhagen didn't notice that they were incorporating consciousness into their theory!

David

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Changing everything from "material" to "quantumish" does nothing to change the fundamental problems. The only thing that's consciousness-like in QM is stuff made up by people who seem satisfied with made-up solutions. If there is a hard problem, and if it is solved with QM, it will simply be because some quantum mechanical mechanisms are required in the brain.

So I'm happy for Stapp to continue his work. It might prove fruitful. But I don't think we're going to find libertarian free will in there.


~~ Paul

In one sense I don't disagree with you. Substituting one mechanism for another in the brain does not solve the mind body problem, at best it can only be a step in that direction, and unfortunately the word 'quantum' does occasionally get uttered by someone who don't know what it means!!

I go with Chalmers when he says that the universe must contain 'mind stuff' that interacts with matter, but which is not reducible to existing physics. For this to solve the mind body problem, it seems to me that it is probably going to be a form of irreducible consciousness. Yes, that is something of a cop-out, but no more so than writing down the inverse square law and stating that there is an invisible gravitational field that just obeys that law for no particular reason.

Possibly we are iterating towards the crux of this matter (as in your fear of mechanism link, except the other way round). Anything that can qualify as a mind, can't be reduced to mechanism.

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

The orthodox interpretation talks of 'observations' which need human (or presumably animal) consciousness.

No, it doesn't. The Copenhagen interpretation says nothing about conciousness.

Also note the important distinction between interpretation and theory.


The interpretations revolve around metaphors. The theory revolves around mathematics. If you take away the mathematics there is nothing there. Morphic resonance is just that - a metaphor devoid of any substance.

Does anyone honestly think that the physicists at Copenhagen didn't notice that they were incorporating consciousness into their theory!

David

Yes. They would be surprised and annoyed by all the quantum woo which has arisen.

[Tor]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Where does the orthodox theory say that human consciousness is the crux?

~~ Paul

OK.. Let me quote some quotes. They are from Stapp's recent book, but I know of many of them from before. Few textbooks even talk about what QT really means. The one I used didn't either, but there are those that do. Anyway, the founders of QT talked about these things:

In the introduction to his book "Quantum theory and reality'' the philosopher of science Mario Bunge (1967, p. 4) said:

Let there be no doubt about this point. The original form of quantum theory is subjective, in the sense that it is forthrightly about relationships among conscious human experiences, and it expressly recommends to scientists that they resist the temptation to try to understand the reality responsible for the correlations between our experiences that the theory correctly describes. The following brief collection of quotations by the founders gives a conspectus of the Copenhagen philosophy:

Heisenberg (1958a, p. 100):

Heisenberg (1958b, p. 55):

Heisenberg (1958b, p. 54):

Wigner (1961b, p.169):

Bohr (1934, p. 18):

Human consciousness was the only thing they considered to be relevant in this regard. But I guess it was because they couldn't ask animals if they were conscious.

Btw Paul, I think the link you posted (http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/WallaceComments.doc) was very informing when it comes to the deeper issues of Stapp's theory. Wallace seems like the right guy to pair Stapp up with.

David, I'd recommend you read the Wallace comments.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

The orthodox interpretation talks of 'observations' which need human (or presumably animal) consciousness. Does anyone honestly think that the physicists at Copenhagen didn't notice that they were incorporating consciousness into their theory!

Are you sure those observations can't be interactions with other objects?

Copenhagen is an interpretation. Show me the math that describes human consciousness.

... and unfortunately the word 'quantum' does occasionally get uttered by someone who don't know what it means!!

It is a rare foray into gobbledygook that does not begin
with a tribute to quantum mechanics. ---Jamie Whyte

I go with Chalmers when he says that the universe must contain 'mind stuff' that interacts with matter, but which is not reducible to existing physics. For this to solve the mind body problem, it seems to me that it is probably going to be a form of irreducible consciousness. Yes, that is something of a cop-out, but no more so than writing down the inverse square law and stating that there is an invisible gravitational field that just obeys that law for no particular reason.

Way more so. Gravity is fairly simple. This irreducible consciousness is going to have to be full-blown human-style consciousnesses. Otherwise the mechanistic construction of human consciousness from simple components will not give the libertarians what they want.

Possibly we are iterating towards the crux of this matter (as in your fear of mechanism link, except the other way round). Anything that can qualify as a mind, can't be reduced to mechanism.

Like I just said.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Tor,

Thanks for the link to the discussion with Wallace. I rather feel the problem with Stapp is that he thinks his explanation of consciousness is complete, and it isn't.

Chris,

You don't really want to argue about the foundations of QM with Heisenberg, Wigner, and Bohr, do you?

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

You don't really want to argue about the foundations of QM with Heisenberg, Wigner, and Bohr, do you?

Perfectly happy to. Hey guys, where's the math that demonstrates that human consciousness is required?

~~ Paul

[Tor]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Tor,

Thanks for the link to the discussion with Wallace. I rather feel the problem with Stapp is that he thinks his explanation of consciousness is complete, and it isn't.

David

I don't think he thinks it is complete (which it isn't, I totally agree there), just much better than the classical explanations that seem to reduce us all to a sophisticated and highly organized pile of mindless particles. In the end his process zero, which is connected with our choices, is a postulate. But some postulate is needed anyway, and I think it is worth exploring.

It is the only physical theory I know of that also can serve as a theoretical foundation for some of the phenomena discussed in this forum.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Are you sure those observations can't be interactions with other objects?
~~ Paul

Well of course I am not sure, any more than you can be sure that anything else will do - you obviously know the argument that a classical measuring apparatus can also be treated as a quantum system - that is exactly why Schroedinger introduced his famous cat (I wish he had used a rat instead, that bit of QM has always made me wince).

The quotes that Tor produced obviously indicate that the originators of the theory were at least considering the possibility that it is only the mind that performs the wave function collapse.

David