Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Can Quantum Physics Explain Artificial Consci

Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 7:10:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Please discuss. The article link below is for context.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org...

Here's a piece from it:

""So I'm working on microtubules as information processors,"
Hameroff recalls, "and suggesting the idea of consciousness going
down to this lower level, inside of cells. But people would say, 'Well,
so what? Let's say you're right how does that explain consciousness?'

"
Chalmers had not yet formulated the Hard Problem, but Hameroff
had just bloodied his nose on it. Critics were asking roughly the same
basic question how does all this supposed buzzing and clicking in the
microtubules produce subjective experience?

"Also, people were saying, 'If these microtubules are just fancy
computers, then computers should be conscious unless you view it as
some sort of emergent phenomenon,' " Hameroff says. "What some
people say is that consciousness is some novel property that
emerges at a higher level in a hierarchical system. Like wetness is an
emergent property of water, or the Great Red Spot of Jupiter is an
emergent property of dust, storms and heat."
However, that doesn't seem likely to Hameroff he argues that no
other emergent phenomenon appears to have the properties of
consciousness.

"Well, anyway, I was stuck," he says. "I had to admit they were
right."

At that bleak point Hameroff was lucky enough to read The Emperor's
New Mind, a book by Roger Penrose, the brilliant Oxford
mathematical physicist, and winner, with world-renowned black hole
guru Stephen Hawking, of the prestigious Wolf Prize in physics.
In his book Penrose demonstrates a prodigious mastery of
mathematics and difficult quantum physics concepts as he launches
an attack on the worldwide artificial intelligence community, whose
members confidently predict that some day a sufficiently advanced
computer will be able to do everything the human mind can do.
But Penrose argues that the mind is so intimately tied with the warp
and woof of basic reality that no computer is ever likely to achieve
anything close to the full-color symphony of human consciousness,
with its ever-dancing muses of inspiration, insight and originality.
The mathematician initially postulated the essence of mind occurring
at the level of neurons firing or not firing, which he saw as tying in
with quantum effects.

"I thought that was too high a level," Hameroff says. "I thought that
maybe I had the structure and he had the mechanism.""

Thoughts anyone ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 7:57:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The answer seems to be an obvious "no."

A rephrasing of the question could be, "Can purely physical means explain the metaphysical?"

It just doesn't make sense.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 4:00:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 7:57:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The answer seems to be an obvious "no."

A rephrasing of the question could be, "Can purely physical means explain the metaphysical?"

It just doesn't make sense.

or is the word "metaphysical" just an errant concept.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 4:07:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 4:00:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 7:57:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The answer seems to be an obvious "no."

A rephrasing of the question could be, "Can purely physical means explain the metaphysical?"

It just doesn't make sense.

or is the word "metaphysical" just an errant concept.

That suggestion is self-refuting. A concept, by definition, is metaphysical.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 4:08:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 7:10:29 PM, Iredia wrote:
Please discuss. The article link below is for context.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org...

Here's a piece from it:

""So I'm working on microtubules as information processors,"
Hameroff recalls, "and suggesting the idea of consciousness going
down to this lower level, inside of cells. But people would say, 'Well,
so what? Let's say you're right how does that explain consciousness?'

"
Chalmers had not yet formulated the Hard Problem, but Hameroff
had just bloodied his nose on it. Critics were asking roughly the same
basic question how does all this supposed buzzing and clicking in the
microtubules produce subjective experience?

"Also, people were saying, 'If these microtubules are just fancy
computers, then computers should be conscious unless you view it as
some sort of emergent phenomenon,' " Hameroff says. "What some
people say is that consciousness is some novel property that
emerges at a higher level in a hierarchical system. Like wetness is an
emergent property of water, or the Great Red Spot of Jupiter is an
emergent property of dust, storms and heat."
However, that doesn't seem likely to Hameroff he argues that no
other emergent phenomenon appears to have the properties of
consciousness.

"Well, anyway, I was stuck," he says. "I had to admit they were
right."

At that bleak point Hameroff was lucky enough to read The Emperor's
New Mind, a book by Roger Penrose, the brilliant Oxford
mathematical physicist, and winner, with world-renowned black hole
guru Stephen Hawking, of the prestigious Wolf Prize in physics.
In his book Penrose demonstrates a prodigious mastery of
mathematics and difficult quantum physics concepts as he launches
an attack on the worldwide artificial intelligence community, whose
members confidently predict that some day a sufficiently advanced
computer will be able to do everything the human mind can do.
But Penrose argues that the mind is so intimately tied with the warp
and woof of basic reality that no computer is ever likely to achieve
anything close to the full-color symphony of human consciousness,
with its ever-dancing muses of inspiration, insight and originality.
The mathematician initially postulated the essence of mind occurring
at the level of neurons firing or not firing, which he saw as tying in
with quantum effects.

"I thought that was too high a level," Hameroff says. "I thought that
maybe I had the structure and he had the mechanism.""

Thoughts anyone ?

I can certainly understand how consciousness gets linked to QM. One can prove that an atom is a wave or a particle simply by the experiment they choose. An atom does not even exist as something other than a possibility until it is observed.

It is pretty jacked up mind bending stuff. At this point, I think it is too speculative to make a call on it. I love that this guy has devoted to understanding it and has a theory that has twenty testable observations should his theory hold. That is true science and even if not true will help corner this thing call consciousness.

What I do believe is that since consciousness is across mammals in different degrees, I think this function will be universal but will vary in some sort of fashion which will explain why we have capability beyond other animals.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 4:17:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 4:07:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:00:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 7:57:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The answer seems to be an obvious "no."

A rephrasing of the question could be, "Can purely physical means explain the metaphysical?"

It just doesn't make sense.

or is the word "metaphysical" just an errant concept.

That suggestion is self-refuting. A concept, by definition, is metaphysical.

and if the definition is wrong?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 4:21:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 4:17:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:07:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:00:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 7:57:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The answer seems to be an obvious "no."

A rephrasing of the question could be, "Can purely physical means explain the metaphysical?"

It just doesn't make sense.

or is the word "metaphysical" just an errant concept.

That suggestion is self-refuting. A concept, by definition, is metaphysical.

and if the definition is wrong?

If you're using the word "concept" to mean something other than what it's dictionary definition is, you have to provide your own definition if you want anyone to understand you. As it stands, your suggestion is self-refuting.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 4:24:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 4:21:12 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:17:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:07:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:00:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 7:57:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The answer seems to be an obvious "no."

A rephrasing of the question could be, "Can purely physical means explain the metaphysical?"

It just doesn't make sense.

or is the word "metaphysical" just an errant concept.

That suggestion is self-refuting. A concept, by definition, is metaphysical.

and if the definition is wrong?

If you're using the word "concept" to mean something other than what it's dictionary definition is, you have to provide your own definition if you want anyone to understand you. As it stands, your suggestion is self-refuting.

You will have to first share with me the definition that states the metaphysical can not be explained by physical processes.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 4:28:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 4:24:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:21:12 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:17:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:07:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:00:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 7:57:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The answer seems to be an obvious "no."

A rephrasing of the question could be, "Can purely physical means explain the metaphysical?"

It just doesn't make sense.

or is the word "metaphysical" just an errant concept.

That suggestion is self-refuting. A concept, by definition, is metaphysical.

and if the definition is wrong?

If you're using the word "concept" to mean something other than what it's dictionary definition is, you have to provide your own definition if you want anyone to understand you. As it stands, your suggestion is self-refuting.

You will have to first share with me the definition that states the metaphysical can not be explained by physical processes.

Metaphysical: Abstract.
Abstract: Not physical.

For example, thoughts, ideas, math, logic, etc. Denying the metaphysical is a silly road to go down.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 5:00:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 4:28:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:24:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:21:12 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:17:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:07:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:00:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 7:57:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The answer seems to be an obvious "no."

A rephrasing of the question could be, "Can purely physical means explain the metaphysical?"

It just doesn't make sense.

or is the word "metaphysical" just an errant concept.

That suggestion is self-refuting. A concept, by definition, is metaphysical.

and if the definition is wrong?

If you're using the word "concept" to mean something other than what it's dictionary definition is, you have to provide your own definition if you want anyone to understand you. As it stands, your suggestion is self-refuting.

You will have to first share with me the definition that states the metaphysical can not be explained by physical processes.

Metaphysical: Abstract.
Abstract: Not physical.

For example, thoughts, ideas, math, logic, etc. Denying the metaphysical is a silly road to go down.

Funny enough they do. Or they decieve themselves that physical processes alone acct for consciousness.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2014 5:03:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 5:00:44 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:28:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:24:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:21:12 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:17:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:07:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:00:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 7:57:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The answer seems to be an obvious "no."

A rephrasing of the question could be, "Can purely physical means explain the metaphysical?"

It just doesn't make sense.

or is the word "metaphysical" just an errant concept.

That suggestion is self-refuting. A concept, by definition, is metaphysical.

and if the definition is wrong?

If you're using the word "concept" to mean something other than what it's dictionary definition is, you have to provide your own definition if you want anyone to understand you. As it stands, your suggestion is self-refuting.

You will have to first share with me the definition that states the metaphysical can not be explained by physical processes.

Metaphysical: Abstract.
Abstract: Not physical.

For example, thoughts, ideas, math, logic, etc. Denying the metaphysical is a silly road to go down.

Funny enough they do. Or they decieve themselves that physical processes alone acct for consciousness.

I know right, it's silly. Even if there is a physical aspect to thoughts, it doesn't logically follow that thoughts are purely physical. Just because everytime I think of a fox, a certain chemical reaction happens in my head, doesn't mean that the thought of a fox IS that chemical reaction.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 9:37:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 5:03:28 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 5:00:44 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:28:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:24:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:21:12 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:17:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:07:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:00:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 7:57:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The answer seems to be an obvious "no."

A rephrasing of the question could be, "Can purely physical means explain the metaphysical?"

It just doesn't make sense.

or is the word "metaphysical" just an errant concept.

That suggestion is self-refuting. A concept, by definition, is metaphysical.

and if the definition is wrong?

If you're using the word "concept" to mean something other than what it's dictionary definition is, you have to provide your own definition if you want anyone to understand you. As it stands, your suggestion is self-refuting.

You will have to first share with me the definition that states the metaphysical can not be explained by physical processes.

Metaphysical: Abstract.
Abstract: Not physical.

For example, thoughts, ideas, math, logic, etc. Denying the metaphysical is a silly road to go down.

Funny enough they do. Or they decieve themselves that physical processes alone acct for consciousness.

I know right, it's silly. Even if there is a physical aspect to thoughts, it doesn't logically follow that thoughts are purely physical. Just because everytime I think of a fox, a certain chemical reaction happens in my head, doesn't mean that the thought of a fox IS that chemical reaction.

You guys are so logical you can't even explain what a thought is.

Plus, I'm not the guy who posted the question on whether quantum processes could be involved with generating consciousness. Why post an article on whether a physical process can generate thought if you don't "feel" it is so.

What do you suppose a monkey's thought is when it pictures a banana or feels sad?
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 7:03:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/2/2014 4:28:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:24:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:21:12 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:17:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:07:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:00:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 7:57:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The answer seems to be an obvious "no."

A rephrasing of the question could be, "Can purely physical means explain the metaphysical?"

It just doesn't make sense.

or is the word "metaphysical" just an errant concept.

That suggestion is self-refuting. A concept, by definition, is metaphysical.

and if the definition is wrong?

If you're using the word "concept" to mean something other than what it's dictionary definition is, you have to provide your own definition if you want anyone to understand you. As it stands, your suggestion is self-refuting.

You will have to first share with me the definition that states the metaphysical can not be explained by physical processes.

Metaphysical: Abstract.
Abstract: Not physical.

For example, thoughts, ideas, math, logic, etc. Denying the metaphysical is a silly road to go down.

Like I said. What if the definition is wrong? Metaphysical = Abstract?

Do you really believe that God bestowed upon you a mental capability which is so abstract and has not reason or rhyme on how it works and is explainable?

That defies logic because there are countless number of identical items which mankind thought explainable or attributed to metaphysical reasons because it could not be physically explained.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 7:24:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
How do you explain the quantum mystery that has caused people to look at it as possibly involved in consciousness.

Things like:

1. You can either prove an atom is a particle or a wave depending upon how you choose to measure it, but it can't be both at the same time.

2. An atom has no existence until it is observed and which at that point the wave collapses and the entire history of when it became a potential to when it was observed is immediately becomes a reality when before it was only a probability and did not exist.

3. Two particles can be made that are related, sent away from each other, and when the one is observed and its attribute being measured gets determined the other particle no matter how far away always has the expected attribute. It should be noted the attribute of particle 1 is not known and has a probability to be multiple things. How did particle 2 instantly know what particle 1 was so it could take on the related attribute?

We are trying to build quantum computers which use the fact that a particle can be in three states rather than binary. One of the states is a supposition state where it has both the other attributes at the same time (some may choose to describe that as it does not have either attribute, but a potential to become one.)

What is a particle that does not have an existence or attributes or anything defined about it until it is observed? Is it metaphysical? Is it obvious that that potential is abstract and can not be part of the physical world.

I'm not advocating consciousness is or is not involved with quantum mechanics, but I am showing you how your definition of metaphysical may or may not pertain to very small things.

When you make a definition and say that it is beyond physical and then arbitrary tag something to that definition based upon your own observations, you walk on dangerous grounds.

So I ask you is a particle that is not observed physical or metaphysical and if physical how do you explain why 1-3 above happens?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 2:57:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
slo1, it's impossible to have a debate with you if you play semantics like that. There's no such thing as a "wrong" definition. The "right" definition is the one that is generally understood.

If you don't like the definition of metaphysical, stop using the word. Pick another word, or make up one yourself.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 3:01:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 7:24:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
how do you explain why 1-3 above happens?

Measuring instrument limitations.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 10:43:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 7:03:35 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:28:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:24:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:21:12 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:17:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:07:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:00:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 7:57:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The answer seems to be an obvious "no."

A rephrasing of the question could be, "Can purely physical means explain the metaphysical?"

It just doesn't make sense.

or is the word "metaphysical" just an errant concept.

That suggestion is self-refuting. A concept, by definition, is metaphysical.

and if the definition is wrong?

If you're using the word "concept" to mean something other than what it's dictionary definition is, you have to provide your own definition if you want anyone to understand you. As it stands, your suggestion is self-refuting.

You will have to first share with me the definition that states the metaphysical can not be explained by physical processes.

Metaphysical: Abstract.
Abstract: Not physical.

For example, thoughts, ideas, math, logic, etc. Denying the metaphysical is a silly road to go down.

Like I said. What if the definition is wrong? Metaphysical = Abstract?

Do you really believe that God bestowed upon you a mental capability which is so abstract and has not reason or rhyme on how it works and is explainable?

That defies logic because there are countless number of identical items which mankind thought explainable or attributed to metaphysical reasons because it could not be physically explained.

Is a solipsistic world possible in your opinion? What about philosophical zombies?

Also, there's a notorious problem explaining intentionality with anything physical.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 7:25:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 2:57:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
slo1, it's impossible to have a debate with you if you play semantics like that. There's no such thing as a "wrong" definition. The "right" definition is the one that is generally understood.

If you don't like the definition of metaphysical, stop using the word. Pick another word, or make up one yourself.

You are right. I don't have a problem with your definition. I have a problem with your logic which uses that definition which is fundamentally equates to consciousness can not have physical explanations because is is not physical.

Yet fundamentally you don't know what is it nor can you explain it other than your anecdotal evidence of using your consciousness.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 8:06:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 10:43:31 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:03:35 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:28:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:24:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:21:12 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:17:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:07:02 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/2/2014 4:00:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/26/2014 7:57:47 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The answer seems to be an obvious "no."

A rephrasing of the question could be, "Can purely physical means explain the metaphysical?"

It just doesn't make sense.

or is the word "metaphysical" just an errant concept.

That suggestion is self-refuting. A concept, by definition, is metaphysical.

and if the definition is wrong?

If you're using the word "concept" to mean something other than what it's dictionary definition is, you have to provide your own definition if you want anyone to understand you. As it stands, your suggestion is self-refuting.

You will have to first share with me the definition that states the metaphysical can not be explained by physical processes.

Metaphysical: Abstract.
Abstract: Not physical.

For example, thoughts, ideas, math, logic, etc. Denying the metaphysical is a silly road to go down.

Like I said. What if the definition is wrong? Metaphysical = Abstract?

Do you really believe that God bestowed upon you a mental capability which is so abstract and has not reason or rhyme on how it works and is explainable?

That defies logic because there are countless number of identical items which mankind thought explainable or attributed to metaphysical reasons because it could not be physically explained.

Is a solipsistic world possible in your opinion? What about philosophical zombies?

In my opinion it is extremely unlikely, but in honor of understanding there are many mysteries which are unsolved, I would not be unwilling to listen to arguments for it.
Also, there's a notorious problem explaining intentionality with anything physical.

There is a problem with explaining physicality let alone intentionality, which is why I brought up the strange behaviors we have proven to exist with small things.

We all hit a table with our hands and it feels solid, yet if you took a small enough piece of the table and shot it through some slits it would be a wave and nothing solid.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 8:23:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 3:01:24 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:24:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
how do you explain why 1-3 above happens?

Measuring instrument limitations.

That is simply not true. These observations have been proven for decades and continue to be proven. The fact that these behaviors happen are universally accepted by physicists. That is because there is an overwhelming set of work, experiments, and data confirming these behaviors.

What I am getting at is why must consciousness be expected to be metaphysical, but a particle which clearly shows metaphysical behaviors not be metaphysical?

Why the discrepancy?

One you assume can not have physical roots, but the other despite being so strange and acting metaphysical must have some sort of physical explanation that we just can't see or understand yet. Why?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 3:33:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 7:25:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 2:57:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
slo1, it's impossible to have a debate with you if you play semantics like that. There's no such thing as a "wrong" definition. The "right" definition is the one that is generally understood.

If you don't like the definition of metaphysical, stop using the word. Pick another word, or make up one yourself.

You are right. I don't have a problem with your definition. I have a problem with your logic which uses that definition which is fundamentally equates to consciousness can not have physical explanations because is is not physical.

Consciousness cannot be explained using purely physical means. There, I didn't use the word metaphysical or concept or abstract or idea. That might help.

Yet fundamentally you don't know what is it nor can you explain it other than your anecdotal evidence of using your consciousness.

Who used my consciousness? Myself, right? So I can't be my consciousness if I use it. Am I 100% physical?

At 3/7/2014 8:23:40 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/4/2014 3:01:24 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/4/2014 7:24:46 AM, slo1 wrote:
how do you explain why 1-3 above happens?

Measuring instrument limitations.

That is simply not true.

I'm not convinced. You've given me no reason to think this is a result of anything besides the fact that these particles we try to measure are too small for our instruments to detect accurately.

These observations have been proven for decades and continue to be proven. The fact that these behaviors happen are universally accepted by physicists. That is because there is an overwhelming set of work, experiments, and data confirming these behaviors.

What I am getting at is why must consciousness be expected to be metaphysical, but a particle which clearly shows metaphysical behaviors not be metaphysical?

Why the discrepancy?

One you assume can not have physical roots, but the other despite being so strange and acting metaphysical must have some sort of physical explanation that we just can't see or understand yet. Why?

Consciousness has both physical and metaphysical aspects.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 5:25:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 3:33:16 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:


I'm not convinced. You've given me no reason to think this is a result of anything besides the fact that these particles we try to measure are too small for our instruments to detect accurately.


OK, take this experiment. Build a molecule of carbon hydrogen and nitrogen. 114 atoms in total. Shoot one of those molecules at a metal plate that has two slits in it. The result is an interference pattern at the back wall instead of a single spot like a bullet hole.

Take away the slit and shoot one molecule at the back wall and it is a single point against the back wall. Not like a wave.

-Where in that experiment are you concerned about the measurement instruments?
- How did the particle go through both slits at the same time to create an interference pattern?

There is absolutely no debate that this behavior does not happen. It is proven to happen.
http://www.livescience.com...