Meaning In An Atom

Originally posted by black beetle
The point is that, since we set up the conditions of the experiments (and we set the conditions according to our consciousness alone), the outcomes of our experiments are fully dependent on these conditions, and as such they lack of inherent existence because they are fully consciousness dependent. This connection is existent in every product of the hum ...[text shortened]... rojections of their own consciousness (as is the case with the fractals of reality we perceive).

Which all seems trivial and uninteresting to me.

Yes, this is how I see it.
But why? Why the heavy focus on conciousness? And you are apparently not focused on your own conciousness specifically, which seems rather odd. What about semi-concious beings? What about computers that are capable of partial conciousness? Surely there is a continuum?

The useful thingy is that it follows that there are many realities, all of them deeply subjective and equally validated from the cognitive apparatus and strictly dependent on the consciousness of the sentient beings that are aware of them. And they are aware of them, simply because the realities they perceive are nothing but projections of their own individual and collective consciousness, since they are all products of a specific decoding of the fractal of the holistic reality that is perceived from their cognitive apparatus.
The full interdependence of the differ subjective realities and the consciousnesses that project them, means that all of these realities are strictly subjective and consciousness dependent.
I still see nothing useful.

Both Taoman and I know what means “observer” in QM; at the first page of this thread I told you clearly that our formulas themselves (a mind-only product of the human mind) do not include the observer "human mentation". However, consciousness is required for the experiments the way I just explained at this post. In fact, "no consciousness" means "no experiments"
😵
I disagree. You obviously define 'experiment' in some rather odd way in which a conciousness is required ie you make your claim true by definition. But a typical quantum mechanics experiment in the conventional sense does not require conciousness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which all seems trivial and uninteresting to me.

[b]Yes, this is how I see it.
But why? Why the heavy focus on conciousness? And you are apparently not focused on your own conciousness specifically, which seems rather odd. What about semi-concious beings? What about computers that are capable of partial conciousness? Surely there is a continuum?
...[text shortened]... al quantum mechanics experiment in the conventional sense does not require conciousness.[/b]

Edit: "But why? Why the heavy focus on conciousness? And you are apparently not focused on your own consciousness specifically, which seems rather odd. What about semi-concious beings? What about computers that are capable of partial conciousness? Surely there is a continuum?"

The focus on consciousness is as heavy as it gets, because it is, along with our products, our sole interface between us and the observer universe. The same applies for all the sentient beings. Without consciousness, the sentient beings get no meaning at all out of their interaction with the observer universe.
Lacvking of inner world, the inanimate observers have a different type of a mind-only interaction with their environment and with the other observers; they process the information that they contain, the ground of their physical existence since they are a sum of elements of reality, each according to its nature and to the specific conditions it encounters. I evaluate these two types of consciousness as a huge unified mind-only field of awareness, the realm from which all the kinds of "meaning" pop up.


Edit: "I still see nothing useful."

I see, but this is the most useful product, and it is the playground of a huge number of Eastern and Western philosophers. Amongst else it debunks the delusion of the dualist approach as regards the way all the observers (always in flux) and thus all the phenomena (always in flux) exist, it destroys the myth of the so called “Absolute Truth” etc etc.


Edit: "I disagree. You obviously define 'experiment' in some rather odd way in which a conciousness is required ie you make your claim true by definition. But a typical quantum mechanics experiment in the conventional sense does not require conciousness."

This is not the case. OK, I will try one last time to rephrase so that you will hopefully understand what I mean, and then I will give up! I deeply thank you in advance for the conversation.
For example, take the quantum eraser experiment: A photon is shot through a specialized BBO crystal (simply because We set the experiment this way). This action brings up SPDC and then the single photon is converted into two entangled photons of lower frequency, and then one of these entangled photons goes directly to a detector (that is put there by Us in order to provide specific conditions for our experiment), which sends information of the received photon to a device (an invention of Ours that will be used under specific conditions for specific purposes for the sake of Our experiment) that notes the nearly simultaneous reception of a photon in each of two detectors so that it can count how many pairs of entangled photons have made it through the apparatus (the inanimate apparatus We set up for the sake of out experiment, which it will be conducted strictly under the conditions We have set) and exclude the influence of any photons that enter the apparatus without having become entangled. All that jazz takes place and it is evaluated by Us as a verified orthogonal event solely because We observed it thanks to Our specific setting alone. When the coincidence counter is signaled of the arrival of the partner photon, it increments its count, and the timer (that We set up for a specific reason in order to conduct our experiment) signals a stepper motor to move the second detector on a regular basis so that it can scan across the range of positions where interference fringes could be detected etc etc.
So clearly, I repeat that the case is not that the experiment includes the observer "human mentation". The case is that, since we set up the conditions of our experiments (and since we set the conditions according to our consciousness alone), the outcomes of our experiments are fully dependent on these conditions, and as such they lack of inherent existence because they are fully consciousness dependent.
😵