Does consciousness affect matter?


jts

Recommended Posts

I am puzzled by this video starting at about 4 minutes. The cartoon professor seems to be saying consciousness affects matter. Is that true? I have difficulty believing that.

What is the method of observation? The video didn't say. Bouncing photons or other particles off electrons or however else you observe electrons would affect the electrons (I would expect). Did he really mean consciousness affects matter?

If consciousness affects matter, then maybe different observers will have a different effect with the same hardware. What would be the effect of a multitude of observers? What if the observer is a horse or a dog?

http://youtu.be/3_BzTMeV4HI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Absolutely no idea. I do not understand it well enough to explain it to someone else. I do get it up to the point of the observer. Like you, i wonder about the nature of the sensor. A sensor would absorb energy from the electron wave, changing it. So, I do not know what happens next.

As for the larger question, you know what an EEG electro encephalograph is, for measuring brain activity. So the events in your brain (your mind) make needles move. The transducer, the EEG machine internals, is irrelevant. The outcome is that a physical recording device reacts to your thoughts or emotions. So, yes, consciousness affects matter.

What is it when you pick up a hammer and drive a nail? Is that not the same, consciousness affecting matter?

You are really asking about Schroedinger's cat. I just finished James Gleick;s biography of Richard Feynman. Gleick does a good job of explaining quantum mechanics in conversational English. If you want to know more, I suggest a real physics book, rather than The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Any university survey textbook for science majors will be a solid foundation. QM is usually a sophomore class for physics majors and their ilk. One thing about Feynman was he lived well with ambiguity, with not knowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am puzzled by this video starting at about 4 minutes. The cartoon professor seems to be saying consciousness affects matter. Is that true? I have difficulty believing that.

At 4:22 he says, "the very act of measuring or observing ..", which is ambiguous. The measuring instrument is physical but not conscious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am puzzled by this video starting at about 4 minutes. The cartoon professor seems to be saying consciousness affects matter. Is that true? I have difficulty believing that.

At 4:22 he says, "the very act of measuring or observing ..", which is ambiguous. The measuring instrument is physical but not conscious.

Merlin, Hasn't this been laughed down, yet?

I mean, that the way to measure a billiard-ball's trajectory and position, might

NOT be, to throw other balls at it?

(Puzzled like jts.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciousness is an electro-chemical process that takes place mostly in the brain and spinal column. Yes, it affects matter. It moves your muscles.

It is a physical process with physical effects. It is a -branial- thing not a mental thing. We have brains. No one has ever objectively detected a mind with any kind of scanning equipment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am puzzled by this video starting at about 4 minutes. The cartoon professor seems to be saying consciousness affects matter. Is that true? I have difficulty believing that.

What is the method of observation? The video didn't say. Bouncing photons or other particles off electrons or however else you observe electrons would affect the electrons (I would expect). Did he really mean consciousness affects matter?

If consciousness affects matter, then maybe different observers will have a different effect with the same hardware. What would be the effect of a multitude of observers? What if the observer is a horse or a dog?

http://youtu.be/3_BzTMeV4HI

Disbelieve or doubt any tv snippet on the internet. Go see -Wag the Dog- and learn wisdom.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciousness is an electro-chemical process that takes place mostly in the brain and spinal column. Yes, it affects matter. It moves your muscles.

It is a physical process with physical effects. It is a -branial- thing not a mental thing. We have brains. No one has ever objectively detected a mind with any kind of scanning equipment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I believe that the quoted post is an example of a Mind at work, Reptiles have brains. A big reptile has a big brain. The brontosauraus had two brains, the larger in its ass. Mind is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to suggest two stories: The Blind Men and the Elephant (traditional); and Flatland by Edwin Abbot. You perceive an aspect of something and you think that this manifestation is the whole thing. You only perceive what you can perceive. We are creatures of (at best) four dimensions.

You and this cartoon worry about electrons being waves or particles when in fact - hah! <quote>"fact"<quote>. it is the field that creates both waves and particles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciousness is an electro-chemical process that takes place mostly in the brain and spinal column. Yes, it affects matter. It moves your muscles.

It is a physical process with physical effects. It is a -branial- thing not a mental thing. We have brains. No one has ever objectively detected a mind with any kind of scanning equipment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I believe that the quoted post is an example of a Mind at work, Reptiles have brains. A big reptile has a big brain. The brontosauraus had two brains, the larger in its ass. Mind is different.

You can believe anything you wish to believe. But all you have OBSERVED are my hen scratches on your computer screen.

I (the entity producing this post) propose that you believe you are communicating with a human person. In point of fact this entity doing the post is an organic finite state automaton. This Entity has enough states to fake a passing grade on the Turing Test. This Entity has been passing for human going on eight decades.

Distinguish what you suppose from what you have perceived.

If Descartes had done this we would not have the body-mind problem, which makes about as much sense as the stomach-digestion problem.

Facts rule. Theories and hypotheses serve (sometimes).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence that consciousness affects matter. Consciousness might be a function of the brain and not something that affects the brain.

Theory 1:

Consciousness causes brain changes.

Brain causes body movement.

(Consciousness --> brain --> movement.)

Theory 2: (This makes more sense to me.)

Brain causes consciousness.

Brain causes body movement.

(Brain --> consciousness. Brain --> movement.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merlin, Hasn't this been laughed down, yet?

I mean, that the way to measure a billiard-ball's trajectory and position, might

NOT be, to throw other balls at it?

(Puzzled like jts.)

We observe billiard balls in motion by throwing photons at them and catching the photons on the rebound.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence that consciousness affects matter. Consciousness might be a function of the brain and not something that affects the brain.

Theory 1:

Consciousness causes brain changes.

Brain causes body movement.

(Consciousness --> brain --> movement.)

Theory 2: (This makes more sense to me.)

Brain causes consciousness.

Brain causes body movement.

(Brain --> consciousness. Brain --> movement.)

Your second theory is deterministic. Free-will necessitates consciousness having at least some affect on the start of the chain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Lord, Jerry,

Do you even know what neuroplasticity is?

"... doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence..." my foot.

There is oodles of evidence of the mind affecting the brain--by volition.

They are even implanting computer chips in the brains of paralyzed people so they can alter their brain cells enough through willpower (and respective training) to send out the proper signals to operate machines.

It works like this. A person thinks something on purpose. The thinking alters his brain cells. The computer chip detects the alteration and sends out respective signals that are tagged to certain cell states (including blood flow).

The person literally thinks "on" (with the right "on" feeling) and the machine turns on. He thinks "off" and the machine turns off. And they are doing a hell of a lot more, too.

Look it up. It's all over.

This isn't opinion or esoteric knowledge or hidden somewhere.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Lord, Jerry,

Do you even know what neuroplasticity is?

"... doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence..." my foot.

There is oodles of evidence of the mind affecting the brain--by volition.

They are even implanting computer chips in the brains of paralyzed people so they can alter their brain cells enough through willpower (and respective training) to send out the proper signals to operate machines.

It works like this. A person thinks something on purpose. The thinking alters his brain cells. The computer chip detects the alteration and sends out respective signals that are tagged to certain cell states (including blood flow).

The person literally thinks "on" (with the right "on" feeling) and the machine turns on. He thinks "off" and the machine turns off. And they are doing a hell of a lot more, too.

Look it up. It's all over.

This isn't opinion or esoteric knowledge or hidden somewhere.

Michael

Is this a satisfactory explanation of what neuroplasicity is?

Neuroplasticity: The brain's ability to reorganize itself by forming new neural connections throughout life. Neuroplasticity allows the neurons (nerve cells) in the brain to compensate for injury and disease and to adjust their activities in response to new situations or to changes in their environment.

Brain reorganization takes place by mechanisms such as "axonal sprouting" in which undamaged axons grow new nerve endings to reconnect neurons whose links were injured or severed. Undamaged axons can also sprout nerve endings and connect with other undamaged nerve cells, forming new neural pathways to accomplish a needed function.

For example, if one hemisphere of the brain is damaged, the intact hemisphere may take over some of its functions. The brain compensates for damage in effect by reorganizing and forming new connections between intact neurons. In order to reconnect, the neurons need to be stimulated through activity.

Neuroplasticity sometimes may also contribute to impairment. For example, people who are deaf may suffer from a continual ringing in their ears (tinnitus), the result of the rewiring of brain cells starved for sound. For neurons to form beneficial connections, they must be correctly stimulated.

Neuroplasticity is also called brain plasticity or brain malleability.

Consciousness affects the brain. So what? What causes consciousness? Probably the brain.
Brain --> consciousness --> brain.
More exactly:
Brain --> consciousness.
Brain --> brain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this a satisfactory explanation of what neuroplasicity is?

Jerry,

Actually it is not very good at all. Not because it is incorrect, but because it is very, very limited. It's sort of like describing the essence of a car to someone as a thing that has a steering wheel, a radio and a glove compartment. And please provide the link when you quote that much of an article (see Definition of Neuroplasticity from MedicineNet). Or at least source it.

You did not have this problem with the video you embedded above. But do you know where it comes from? I do. A movie called What The Bleep Do We Know? That movie also has a cool part where a lady (JZ Knight) channels a spirit called Ramtha.

:)

(Seriously. She does. Or says she does... :) )

Regardless, it seems to me like you have some reading to do.

btw - You like videos. There's a good one here (from May of last year): Brain implant allows paralysed woman to control a robot with her thoughts

I'm surprised that you, as an Alex Jones fan, are not familiar with this. See here on Infowars: They Really Do Want To Implant Microchips Into Your Brain.

About your equation, there is a concept called biomorphic field. Just as a fertilized human cell has no legs or arms, but it contains a field within it that makes it so it cannot grow otherwise through time and space, the same thing can be said of the brain. The mind is--or comes from--a biomorphic field, not just the meat. And when it gets to the point where the mind can actually alter the brain--physically alter it, this points to things we don't yet know.

Any claim that we do know at our current state of knowledge is either speculation or someone trying to deduce reality from a principle or condition that he or she believes it should be.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About your equation, there is a concept called biomorphic field. Just as a fertilized human cell has no legs or arms, but it contains a field within it that makes it so it cannot grow otherwise through time and space, the same thing can be said of the brain. The mind is--or comes from--a biomorphic field, not just the meat. And when it gets to the point where the mind can actually alter the brain--physically alter it, this points to things we don't yet know.

Any claim that we do know at our current state of knowledge is either speculation or someone trying to deduce reality from a principle or condition that he or she believes it should be.

Michael

Has this "field" been detected by instrumental means. We can detect magnetic fields by using iron filings. We can detect electric fields by lighting up neon or flourescent lights without contact with the field source. What physical instrument or measurement shows this "field" is real as opposed to being a facon de parler.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

Insturmental means? Not really. But I don't expect to detect color with a magnet, either.

We detect biomorphic fields simply by watching something grow.

You want measurement? The biomorphic field for humans means two legs and two arms. As the child grows, you can measure those. If there are three legs, for example, something popped outside the field. If only three legged people start being born, the field has changed and we are in deep shit. :smile:

btw - Can you measure gravity? Not the things gravity operates on. Gravity itself.

If not, that must be a fiction. Right?

Heh.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

Insturmental means? Not really. But I don't expect to detect color with a magnet, either.

We detect biomorphic fields simply by watching something grow.

That is not detection. It is a hypothesis or hypothetical field. Now can it be detected by physical instrumentation. We can detect and measure magnetic fields, electric field and gravitational fields with physical instruments. They are are real as rain. What about this magical biomorphic field. This sound like a back door way of reintroducing the bogus concept of Vital Essence.

Real fields have mathematical laws governing them. What about this magical biomorphic field. Where is the math?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the math?

Bob,

Two legs. Two arms.

I thought I already said that.

This math is valid across the species. And we don't even need to manipulate particles to measure it.

So you want to blame a biomorphic field for not being a magnetic field?

I don't understand.

Why should they be the same? Does a magnet give birth?

btw - This is not the same as Vital Essence. But you don't seem to be in the spirit to consider what it is. So what can I say? Don't consider it.

Michael M knows what I'm getting at.

At least I'm not lonely. :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the math?

Bob,

Two legs. Two arms.

I thought I already said that.

This math is valid across the species. And we don't even need to manipulate particles to measure it.

So you want to blame a biomorphic field for not being a magnetic field?

I don't understand.

Why should they be the same? Does a magnet give birth?

btw - This is not the same as Vital Essence. But you don't seem to be in the spirit to consider what it is. So what can I say? Don't consider it.

Michael M knows what I'm getting at.

At least I'm not lonely. :smile:

Michael

That is so superficial and trivial. Shame on you!

I fear your comprehension of physical science is a bit thin. I field is how something Here has a physical effect on something There. Effects travel at or less than light speed. The presence of fields are detected by physical means and are carefully described by mathematical means. The so called "bio field" is just a locution to sneak Vital Essence back into polite conversation. It is physical nonsense. In living things as well as dead things, the main field is the electromagnetic field.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is so superficial and trivial. Shame on you!

Bob,

Shame on you for believing the simple is superficial and trivial.

Your intellect is not a smokescreen against reality.

But you treat it as if it were.

I will not be intimidated by foolish bluster. You fear for my lack of knowledge. I fear for your lack of wisdom.

The so called "bio field" is just a locution to sneak Vital Essence back into polite conversation.

You said this once and I said I was not talking about that. Nor am I. But you repeat it like a Pavlovian dog salivating when the right word dings your bell.

Shame on your a second time.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is so superficial and trivial. Shame on you!

Bob,

Shame on you for believing the simple is superficial and trivial.

Your intellect is not a smokescreen against reality.

But you treat it as if it were.

I will not be intimidated by foolish bluster. You fear for my lack of knowledge. I fear for your lack of wisdom.

>The so called "bio field" is just a locution to sneak Vital Essence back into polite conversation.

You said this once and I said I was not talking about that. Nor am I. But you repeat it like a Pavlovian dog salivating when the right word dings your bell.

Shame on your a second time.

Michael

I will be more blunt. It is a bogus concept detached from any known physical laws.

State it in physical terms. Make it make sense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

I don't feel like writing everything all over again (and again and again...), so let me just reference a recent post. You will either agree or disagree, but ultimately, you will have nothing more than an opinion. There is no certainty for this issue, albeit certainty exists for others.

There are many speculations about superior intellegence, starting with NB's "underlying reality" to biomorphic fields to the religionist's intelligent design. These speculations are attempts to understand consciousness as something more than emergence--a top down influence, so to speak, from a higher form of awareness or intelligence (but not personified as a kind of super human being in spirit form). Incidentally, I am more prone to embrace this understanding (excluding positions premised on traditional religions) as I find the idea of random emergence of form from subparticles, but resulting in the same forms over and over (like holons), too arbitrary to call that anything but a speculation.

And when proponents of it start getting really nasty when I bring this stuff up rather than address my points, I start getting suspicious. :smile:

. . .

I, also, find the idea of confining reality to only stuff that can be understood by the human being at his present stage of evolution an arbitrary conceit if compared against historical biological patterns. Looking at the big picture over known and presumed natural history, there seems to be a march toward greater awareness by individual life forms. Why has that march stopped at the current human organism? Is there no longer anything fundamental that humans are not aware of and can become aware of over time? If not, why?

The only fundamental reason I can come up with is somebody says so. And that's not very fundamental in my view.

In my own mind, I can say parts of reality are unknown. That goes for whether they exist. And that's as far as I can go.

. . .

The human mind comes with a prewired bias for dichotomies. Metaphysically, this is reflected in determinism (forms that emerge from the bottom up) versus holistic thinking (forms that are imposed from the top down). Which one is more fundamental? That is the question. I call that a false dichotomy and I embrace them both as equally fundamental.

The best way I can illustrate my conception is by analogy. I admit I don't like to do that as a technical explanation, but it's the clearest I can find right now. I see this constant God versus atheism debate like arguing over which point a circle starts and where it ends. If it's a full circle, the start point will be the end point. It all depends on who is setting the point and which direction such person wants to go in. For some people, the start point of one will be the end point of another. Others will start and end at even different points. In all cases, the circle doesn't care. It stays the same irrespeciive of where the start and end points are set by people.

The best I can do is say some people use religion for good and others use it for evil. Ditto for atheism. But none of that makes either true or false.

Although this post was aimed at atheism versus existence of God, it serves for other top-down form things like biomorphic fields, holons, a form I call a small command center with a large body of other elements it controls (which holds for solar systems to human beings to atoms), life itself, even evolution if seen as an action and not just a reaction.

So long as you hold that the only existents are those that can be perceived by humans at our current stage of evolution--with all other theories and speculations being bunk, we will keep disagreeing.

I am intrigued by the constant glimpses we see from in between the cracks of our own evolutionary development. I believe human beings are still evolving forms of awareness and I base this on the fact that we have evolved what we have so far from so little. Like I said above, I believe it is a conceit and nothing more to imagine we have stopped evolving. Thus, I believe we see glimpses from incomplete undeveloped organs. ("See" in this case is a metaphor.)

You believe this stuff is nonsense.

And that leads me back to my original point. There is no certainty for this issue by the very nature of how human beings know things. So you have your opinion and I have mine. That's about the best we can do.

At least we can have the certainty that 2 + 2 = 4. That may not sound like much, but to me, in light of our human size versus the size of the universe (both macro and micro), it's a big deal.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now