Posted on 12/07/2002 9:46:51 AM PST by beckett
"Conscious observer" sounds better than "obsense" to me, A-G! :^) I guess we really do need to come up with a way to distinguish between conscious observer and QM observer after all.
VadeRetro took me to task for "anthropomorphizing." Guilty! But what is it, if not "anthropomorphizing," to designate the event that induces state vector collapse as the "observer," as QM does? Better to call it "kumquat!"
In the experimental tests of Bell's Theorem, a conscious observer (CO) "intended" (within the meaning of the intentionalist mode of consciousness described above) a particular experimental design, which was then put into effect, and whose results were carefully observed. An event -- called state vector collapse (after Schroedinger's equation) -- was observed by the CO. Looking at the effects, the CO surmises that it was the act of measurement itself that induces the collapse (after Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) -- which measurement QM calls the "observer" but which I propose to call the "kumquat." He finds that it is the measurement itself that determines how the particles under study (a particle and its particle "twin") would work out their completely correlated "destinies" under the physical laws.
So it seems plain enough we do have two distinct kinds of "observer" here. In the experimental setting, the CO observes the kumquat. On the basis of the CO's observation, he draws conclusions that serve as the basis of further theoretical elaboration. One of the conclusions he draws is that the kumquat doesn't need the CO "to be there" in order to "do its thing": That is, such things as this routinely happen outside of the experimental setting.
Needless to say, none of these conclusions was the conclusion of the kumquat. The kumquat does not appear to be a bearer of intentionalist/luminous consciousness; and that little kumquat would not even "exist" at all, if there had not been an intentionalist/luminous consciousness to "discover" him. That which does not "exist" for us in consciousness, for all intents and purposes, does not exist at all -- for us.
That is, if we do not become aware of something, then we assume there is nothing to be aware of. I do not see how it is possible to remove the consciousness of the human observer from science in general, and QM in particular; for without it, there would be no science and no QM.
Note also that the CO has decided in his intentionalist/luminous consciousness, that the work of Schroedinger and Heisenberg is directly relevant to what he's testing for at the QM level. That is, he draws on the intentionalist/luminous consciousness of other thinkers, including Bell's work and Einstein's work, into consideration as relevant to his present investigation.
On this basis, he draws the supposition that the kumquat is free in some way of his observation; he has concluded that kumquat's activity is not dependent on his observation outside of the experimental setting. None of these things, arguably, is strictly the product of the intentionalist mode of consciousness; for they are based on critiques of the work of others, experience, etc., which are not strictly speaking properties associated with the intentionalist mode.
Science seems to have great confidence in the instrumental mode of consciousness -- intentionality. But increasingly it seems to be highly suspicious of the "other pole," of luminosity. Yet the point seems to be that, to explore the quantum world, you need more than pure intentionality. We as conscious selves do not belong to this domain of the very, very small, albeit the parts of which we are constituted do. We can never "cut ourselves down to the size" of the quantum neighborhood we are exploring, to walk the streets (so to speak) and poke into the nooks and crannies of its reality in a perfectly direct manner. The things we see there are things that can only be seen in their effects, which experiments are designed to produce.
At some point, it seems to me that if we are really to understand the facts and the meaning of what is actually going on "down there" in that neighborhood, then the CO will need to have greater appreciation for the luminous pole of consciousness -- for it has always been implicit in his work at some level anyway, whether he denies it or not.
Occasionally, a CO detects an event not actually supported by kumquat events. This can be interpreted as supernatural but is more often a sign of defective CO operation. If the condition clears up after a day or two in the drunk tank, the latter interpretation is warranted. ;^)
Bad Vade, bad bad, pluralizing with apostrophe!
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!! VR, you so funny! Yet such an event need not necessarily be termed "supernatural." We could just suppose we've seen something that we haven't seen before, and thus don't understand what we've seen. So go design an experiment to try to track the crittur down!
Of course, the design of experiments seems substantially to fall into luminosity territory.... So we'd have to wait for the alcoholic stupor to wear off before tackling such a design...so as to assure we have sufficient "clear light," which alcohol can dull....
At some point, it seems to me that if we are really to understand the facts and the meaning of what is actually going on "down there" in that neighborhood, then the CO will need to have greater appreciation for the luminous pole of consciousness -- for it has always been implicit in his work at some level anyway, whether he denies it or not.
I most certainly agree! And that's where it really gets interesting...
And even if it were, there is always a suspicion that after anyone of us has isolated such an event and termed it "supernatural" that we go ahead and treat it as natural anyhow. This will even be the sloppy habit of those who popularily recognize the phenomena of consciousness. Of course if one is feeling the heat and needs to slip out of the kitchen, they can easily treat what is natural as supernatural.
This is perhaps best restated, "Occasionally, a CO seems to other COs or even to the CO himself to be detecting events not likely supported by kumquat events." Your default assumption tends to be that what you see is real, at least until something tips you off that you're dreaming.
And your default assumption seems to be that consciousness is either illusional or delusional. (If this is so, then what purpose does a "drunk tank" serve?)
I assume that things of which I can become conscious are real, even though the way they may appear to me may not be what they really are, "in themselves."
I guess I wandered too far off point, as you've lost my default assumption. Consciousness is generally rooted in the perception of reality, but some people do see things that aren't there. My original point, now going over the falls never to be seen again, was that sense organs incorporate kumquat-type measurements (which happen all the time anyway) and consciousness incorporates the input.
While noting that perception is not necessary for kumquat, I wanted to say that kumquat is necessary for perception. It is, for accurate perception, but some perception is spurious. People with the DTs--and here we are back in the drunk tank--may see snakes that aren't there or feel insects crawling over them. (At least such sufferers have already taken their snakebite medicine.) People deprived of sensory input experience hallucinations. The silly movie Altered States was about that phenomenon but is not a great source of info thereon.
And some people don’t see things that are right under their noses.
What an absolutely marvelous post, VadeRetro! It is truly to be savored (by me for its wit, its acumen, its penetration)….
I agree that Altered States is a “silly movie.” You don’t want to take your evidence from there. But maybe the mise on scene got to you: a chemically-altered consciousness!!! What is the mechanism of its alteration? And then, what does consciousness do?
It seems to me, before you can get into the issue of “altered consciousness,” it might be profitable first to have an idea of what consciousness is, in the sense of having a specific nature in the first place, such that there is something "there" that can be “altered.”
At this point, science probably has enough information so it can run right out there, and instantly start taking “measurements” of the problem. But of what value are the measurements, if it is not explicit what has been measured?
It might be said that the difficulty can be satisfied simply by taking EEG readings prior to the inducement of cognitive alteration. Then you can compare them with another series of EEGs taken after the fact. Their “difference” becomes the new “fact.”
Then I would have to say: Well, wow, that’s really interesting. But what does it mean?
And does it really have any relevance, beyond the merely instrumental (i.e., other than as a basis for further theoretical development), for the advancement of the Human Project?
You're too gracious with my mumbling and stumbling.
... what does consciousness do? ... of what value are the measurements, if it is not explicit what has been measured? ... what does it mean?
We often can identify rather nicely what's altering a consciousness down to the level of metabolic pathways and brain regions. If anyone still doubts that the brain provides the hardware to run the mind, there was already an abundance of functional mapping when I took physiological psychology over 30 years ago.
And does it really have any relevance, beyond the merely instrumental (i.e., other than as a basis for further theoretical development), for the advancement of the Human Project?
I used to think psychology was the place to be. It was my major back in '71, but I had to go into the Air Force right after that and never got back to psych.
No regrets. It's a rather sterile pursuit. Most of the progress in the last 30 years has come from what you might call the "hardware" side. Pharmacology, cellular biology, disciplines like those.
Ain’t no doubt about it ( to me at least), but modern science has performed virtually Herculean miracles in explicating the “hardware” side of life.
What seems to be going begging these days, however, is folks to fill the role of “champion” for the “software” side. If I might put it that way.
[If anybody is wondering about my selection of the term “champion,” well…I could say that immersion in Six Sigma philosophy and methods (an occupational hazard) has turned my brain to mush….]
Good night, VR; I wish you pleasant dreams. The thought has struck me that, though we might be coming from different routes, maybe we're headed in the same general direction. And I'm grateful for the company. Hope to see you again soon.
At some point, it seems to me that if we are really to understand the facts and the meaning of what is actually going on "down there" in that neighborhood, then the CO will need to have greater appreciation for the luminous pole of consciousness -- for it has always been implicit in his work at some level anyway, whether he denies it or not.
We see in accord with our expectations and some can attain a laser-like focus in this. The Western mind is molded to the material. It is our great strength. And our weakness. We know, now, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that at the most fundamental levels there is some"thing" operative, and powerful, that is wholly intangible yet is active everywhere at all times. We also know that in some strange way everything intimately relates, scientifically, to everything else. There is no"thing" that is truly separate. We've actually known that there is something weird and intangible going on for a long while but it has taken us almost a century to convince ourselves, by experiment, that it is true.
I am inclined to think that those higher dimensions in which the mathematicians so comfortably work actually exist and that our universe emerges as an expression of those dimensions.
I am also inclined to think that the smooth texture of daily conscious experience is analogous to a continuum of motion-picturelike very fine but discreet slices of reality in which the CO plays an active part in smoothing. Planck length and discrete quanta and the specific orbital requirements for electrons move my mind in this direction.
These speculative ideas may be easily dismissed from the "scientific" perspective and they may be entirely wrong but I believe that our inability to cope, philosophically, with the reality described by quantum mechanics, for a century, is a failure of scientific imagination, as much as anything, and so I feel free to speculate in what appears to be newly wide-open territory, at least for Westerners.
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
Not even Bill Gates can do software without the hardware!
Thanks for the dance, BB!
I will not be the first to deny that imagination plays a fundamental role in the success of science.
But we are talking about the ability to see things that aren't there. This "ability" can be quite effectual--even successful by certain standards--because that "ability" has consequences that are actually preferred. That "ability" is not nothing.
Here's an excerpt on the seeing a green rose (how many facets does such sight have?):
< There is a modern classic usually praised as the beginning of modern literature, a work [James Joyce, The Portrait of an Arist] centrally concerned with imaginative willfulness . . . The work begins with a gifted child who is puzzled, as all children are likely to be, by his relation to all existence beyond his consciousness. Stephen Dedalus as a small boy reaches a point in his awakening to the world where he says, "But you could not have a green rose." Then he adds at once, "But perhaps somewhere in the world you could." Even before he is aware of the nature of his revolt, he is questioning Aristotle (and St. Thomas), for whom the accident of greenness is controlled by the essence of being, so that though the color is properly speaking an accident, it is no random accident . . . Joyce himself, in his final days, will wonder whether he as artist is not an artist of the fancy rather than of the imagination, taking up Coleridge's famous distinction. The young Stephen is setting out as artist in the direction of the fancy as the supreme virtue of awareness, as the principal weapon in a manipulation of being.My argument is that his is an inclination common to any man in any time, but that in our world it is an action of aberrant will, now generally raised to the status of a virtue, whereby more mischief is done to the fabric of individual and community existence than we have been able to accomodate. If one examines the record of the Western mind, its art and philosophy since the Renaissance, one notices this inclination growing and, by the twentieth centry, largerly dominating that mind. Joyce's Stephen, then, is a culmination, if Joyce's art is itself revolutionary.
--Marion Montgomery, Virtue and Modern Shadows of Turning
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.