from the gospel of mary

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
But how does quantum mechanics explain consciousness?

Isn't it just an attempt to explain one explicable thing in terms of another, with little prospect of mutual elucidation?

It's a new age thing.
Couch your crap in equal measures of mystical language and pseudo-scientific ramblings and you're guaranteed some sales.

Originally posted by spiritmangr8ness
I suppose so however, this is where known reality breaks down "In this quantum world, things are interconnected beyond the limits of space and time. Behind the classical world of separate material particles lies a world that is nonseparable. In a sense, a system of two particles is not two separate particles at all, but one nonseparable potential wh ...[text shortened]... in myself (still learning) check out this link http://www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html

Douglas Hoffstader (author of Godel Escher Bach) has an interesting take on consciousness - he calls 'distributed consciousness'.

Here's a podcast of a talk he gave on it - http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopherszone/stories/2006/1683625.htm

He describes the notion of consciousness existing beyond the boundaries of any one mind.
It goes something like this (and remember, I'm describing it, not vouching for it):

I have a personal notion of 'me'. I can reflect on myself.
Other people around me - my wife, kids, friends, colleagues, students, and so on, also have a notion of me. They can reflect on me too.
This is the distributed consciousness.
Out there in the world is a notion of 'me' formed by the reflection I and others have on 'me'.

I'm still thinking about it ...

Originally posted by spiritmangr8ness
Quantum consciousness is a protoscientific hypothesis that posits a connection between consciousness, neurobiology and quantum mechanics. The hypothesis claims that quantum mechanics is capable of explaining conscious experience. In short it is also theorized that consciousness is a force not unlike gravity or any other force that holds form (matter ...[text shortened]... e time explain how God makes it all work. What I like about it is that this is not pseudoscience

It sounds like pseudoscience to me. How does conciousness 'hold matter in place' or 'give form to matter'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It sounds like pseudoscience to me. How does conciousness 'hold matter in place' or 'give form to matter'?

Well it may sound that way to you but the scientific community(Physicist) have termed this protoscientific. What is interesting though is that quantum mechanics is turning the Newtonian view of the physical universe into pseudoscience. To answer your question about the role of consciousness, I would say that at the very least death could be considered a loss of consciousness or even the transition of consciousness. What we know about this physical property is that matter begins to decompose immediately and return to it's root. If life is the consciousness of man, scientist theorize that consciousness exist beyound the human experience. And is one of the driving forces behind Newtons view of the physical universe. Agreed; this has been grabbed hold of by those who purport pseudosciences, however that fact dosen't detract from what is already known. "Life after Death"?????:'(

the prevailing thought is that consciousness is not a faculty of mind but rather exist outside of the individual yet we are able to percieve it.

If this is the prevailing thought, it looks incoherent to me.

First, no one "perceives" consciousness. Consciousness is something that is entailed by perception, not something that is an object of perception.

Second, what does it mean that consciousness is "outside" an individual?

If I get my local dominatrix to whip me, in what sense am I tapping into some sort of objective consciousness of pain that exists outside of and/or independently of me? It sure feels like the pain is inside me! My dominatrix certainly likes to think so.

Moreover, how can you make sense of "inside" or "outside" unless you do so spatially? But if consciousness is non-physical, how can it be spatially located?

If, instead, you define "inside" and "outside" me in terms of what I am or am not conscious of, then you perilously close to using consciousness in a circular way to define what it is.

But let's suppose that they notion is coherent. What evidence is there, or what reason is there to think, that consciousness exists externally as opposed to existing internally?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
[b]the prevailing thought is that consciousness is not a faculty of mind but rather exist outside of the individual yet we are able to percieve it.

If this is the prevailing thought, it looks incoherent to me.

First, no one "perceives" consciousness. Consciousness is something that is entailed by perception, not something that is an object of ...[text shortened]... e to think, that consciousness exists externally as opposed to existing internally?[/b]

"In the quantum realm, in order to account for the actual existence of anything physical, we are forced to recognize the existence of a nonphysical consciousness. The world cannot be just a bunch of inert matter, a collection of objects. There must also be a subject, a consciousness apart from objects, which is aware of them. Although this may seem at first to be a somewhat radical proposal for a scientist, when one reflects for just a moment, it is not hard to see why this must be so. Just consider the simple question, "how is it that I am seeing anything at all?" Is there something like a little TV in your head? But then who is watching it? And then how is it that they see anything? By trying to account for the seeing of anything with a brain or a TV or any other material mechanism we are just adding more objects, and leaving the question unanswered: what sees any of these objects at all? To escape the trap we must recognize a subject apart from all objects that is aware of the objects. Similarly, to account for actual existence at all, we must recognize a subject, or consciousness, which by its very nature is not another physical object in the system. So when any object is not in your conscious awareness--an atom, a bottle, a cat, your own body, a thought in your brain--it is in a potential state. Only when you become conscious of it does it become actual"

Originally posted by spiritmangr8ness
This gives rise to our conscious experience,and may possibly at some time explain how God makes it all work. What I like about it is that this is not pseudoscience

The pseudoscience begins when an hypothesis about a phenomenon is immediately attached to the finding of a "proof for God". Especially when there's no indication that it would.

Originally posted by spiritmangr8ness
To answer your question about the role of consciousness, I would say that at the very least death could be considered a loss of consciousness or even the transition of consciousness.

I believe that protoscientific means it is not science.

So all living things have conciousness now? Or do only concious beings die?

Moreover, how can you make sense of "inside" or "outside" unless you do so spatially? But if consciousness is non-physical, how can it be spatially located?

If, instead, you define "inside" and "outside" me in terms of what I am or am not conscious of, then you perilously close to using consciousness in a circular way to define what it is.

"the mistake that leads to solipsism is the objectification of the subject, or taking consciousness to be in a particular mind-body when the mind-body is, in fact, a collection of objects in consciousness. The idea of separate conscious individuals is thus an illusion resulting from not recognizing this circularity"

Originally posted by spiritmangr8ness
"In the quantum realm, in order to account for the actual existence of anything physical, we are forced to recognize the existence of a nonphysical consciousness. The world cannot be just a bunch of inert matter, a collection of objects. There must also be a subject, a consciousness apart from objects, which is aware of them. Although this may seem ...[text shortened]... ain--it is in a potential state. Only when you become conscious of it does it become actual"

It would be better if you responded to the points I made, rather than quote a bunch of tangential material.

Originally posted by spiritmangr8ness
Moreover, how can you make sense of "inside" or "outside" unless you do so spatially? But if consciousness is non-physical, how can it be spatially located?

If, instead, you define "inside" and "outside" me in terms of what I am or am not conscious of, then you perilously close to using consciousness in a circular way to define what it is.

" ...[text shortened]... cious individuals is thus an illusion resulting from not recognizing this circularity"

I disagree that the mistake that leads to solipsism is the objectification of the subject; one can objectify a subject without being a solipsist. In fact, the failure to objectify the subject can lead to solipsism. Read Fichte.

The mind-body is a collection of objects in consciousness? I don't think this idealist position is implied by quantum physics.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
I disagree that the mistake that leads to solipsism is the objectification of the subject; one can objectify a subject without being a solipsist. In fact, the failure to objectify the subject can lead to solipsism. Read Fichte.

The mind-body is a collection of objects in consciousness? I don't think this idealist position is implied by quantum physics.

This is a quote from a critique of Wigner's paradoxical view of Schrödinger's cat.It was Wigners proposal that looked at human conscious as being superior to let's say the conscious of an animal or insect or any other living creature. His obectification of the human subject is in this context leads to solipsism. Now for my edification I will read Fichte, however in the meanwhile I agree with this supposition.

Originally posted by ayamethesnake
hmm, I see, I beieve the same thing with the physical body, but our spirits are something completely diffrent.

what makes you think that?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
I disagree that the mistake that leads to solipsism is the objectification of the subject; one can objectify a subject without being a solipsist. In fact, the failure to objectify the subject can lead to solipsism. Read Fichte.

The mind-body is a collection of objects in consciousness? I don't think this idealist position is implied by quantum physics.

Try not to think that the act thinking is a process caused by itself, since that's the dead end approach. A more precise view , and one that requires quantum theory to understand, has a gauge field formed around each synapse of the brain , these fields interact with the other fields forming a complex waveform , i.e. the conscienciousness

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
I believe that too.

It's called the Carbon Cycle...

Doesn't Lance Armstrong ride one of those?