Is Consciousness Discrete?
dougklim at provide.net
Wed Oct 20 20:05:20 EST 1999
Jared Blackburn wrote:
> > >Doug Klimesh wrote in message news
> > >[snip}"And that to truly understand consciousness, you must go beyond
> > >the bounds of purely objective science. Remember that quantum physics
> > >shows that objectiveness is a myth."
> No, quantum physic IN NO WAY shows that objectivity is a myth -- it has
> nothing to do with objectity, but is mearly a set of equations that
> describe phenomina to the best ability currently possible. There are
> numerous philosophical interpretations of the probabilistic nature of
> these equations, incuding: "reality is subjective or determined by the
> observer," "every possible out-come happens, as the 'timeline' splits
> through unprecieved dementions of time," "souls spirits influence the
> world though manipulating the probabilities," "there are hard, fast
> rules, but we don't understand them, and must use probabilistic
> descritpions," "qunatum phenomina are truly random," and many others --
> that is the philosophy of qunatum theory, though, not the science. It
> is pushing ideas like this that lead many physicists to laugh and scoff
> and people in the behavioral sciences.
Ok, I guess I should have said something like, "more than one
philosophical interpretation of quantum physics implies that objectivity
is a myth." My point was about consciousness and how can one know when
they have found a mechanism of consciousness, because consciousness is a
subjective phenomenon. Perhaps I should have left quantum physics out
of it, but I stand by the preceding sentence about consciousness and
No, I think physicists scoff at the nature of behavior sciences in
general. I am interested in neuroscience not behavioral science (at
least on this ng), although I don't know what the line separating the
two fields is. I don't see many behavioral scientists pushing these
subjective reality ideas anyway.
> I might note, that for anything to be true, even a propostition like
> "physical reality is subjective," a there must be an objective reality
> on some level, or the proposition itself is not true (ie, is not
If your definition of truth requires objectivity, then may be nothing is
true (valid). Is there anything that you believe that is not objective?
> Quantum physic is based on and in onjective reality -- it is
> only some peoples (even a few rare, but famous physicists) twisting of
> it to push mystical ideas. This is why Schoerndinger invented his cat
> paradox, to show how rediculous the "reality is not objective" view is,
> by moving to a more macroscopic and obvious level, and why Einstein
> stated "I don't believe a mouse can alter the universe just be looking
> at it."
Quantum physics doesn't have to be twisted at all to push mystical ideas
- that's the point. Read _The Tao of Physics_ by Fritjof Capra
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877735948/dougklimeswebsit ) or
_The Dancing Wu Li Masters_ by Gary Zukav.
But like reality, everybody has their interpretation.
I think Schrodinger invented his cat to move quantum ideas to a more
macroscopic and obvious level only, but I haven't read any of him except
for some interesting quotes in his _What Is Life?_
Einstein also believed that "God doesn't play dice".
More information about the Neur-sci