Re: How

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:07 pm

jackles wrote:nonlocality must be at the root of consciousness in all observers each observer being an unmoving mover.so movment takes place as a change of state to the unmoving sizeless root.reaching this root of the self which is nonlocal to any event is sartori or nirvana in zen buddism.

Why? Why is it not just the case that consciousness is the result of being a sensing body in an external world, that having a CNS that consists of being a neuronal 'net' is more than enough to explain conscious behaviour. As from the subject of computational neural nets we know that a 'neural' net can perform all the logic functions, can identify patterns by learning from experience, can retrieve and match patterns from partial data and can store and retrieve such things. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that groups of such nets, feeding inputs into each other in a feedback network could produce what we call consciousness or self-consciousness. Why is self-consciousness not the result of having a language which allows one to run a pattern or simulation that one perceives as oneself?

What is this need for reductionism in such matters? Is it the result of Dualism still being a popular thought?

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:41 pm

because for qm to work the outer and the inner or observer and field have to be one in the same.spookyness and the cause of spookyness are the same thing.but one pre existed the other.so energy must be a form of consciosness..consciousness is not a form of energy.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:45 pm

jackles wrote:because for qm to work the outer and the inner or observer and field have to be one in the same. ...

How do you explain that the double-slit experiment still produces the results when the 'observer' is mechanical?

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:58 pm

because a man is the one that knows what a result means.the machine is a go between to the automatic observation.the machine hasnt got normal consciouse observation .

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:11 pm

jackles wrote:because a man is the one that knows what a result means.the machine is a go between to the automatic observation.the machine hasnt got normal consciouse observation .

Its nothing to do with the meaning, the actual effects occur when its a mechanical detector, how do you explain that with respect to your idea of a conscious observer?

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:44 pm

arising are you refering to the effects on the double slit experiment.where a single electron is fired but a wave pattern appears on the screen.but when a detector is fit to see which slit the electron went through the observer sees a bullit pattern on the target screen.and so we get super position .is that the one arising.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:22 pm

jackles wrote:...consciousness ...

What do you actually mean by 'consciousness'?

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:40 pm

jackles wrote:arising are you refering to the effects on the double slit experiment.where a single electron is fired but a wave pattern appears on the screen.but when a detector is fit to see which slit the electron went through the observer sees a bullit pattern on the target screen.and so we get super position .is that the one arising.

Something like that but I think it may be the double detector experiment. Will get back to you once I've found my QED book as I think what I'm thinking about is in there.

Ginkgo · Post by **Ginkgo** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:57 am

jackles wrote:arising are you refering to the effects on the double slit experiment.where a single electron is fired but a wave pattern appears on the screen.but when a detector is fit to see which slit the electron went through the observer sees a bullit pattern on the target screen.and so we get super position .is that the one arising.

It is actually the very act of observing that rules out the possibility of superposition. In other words, we cannot actually observe the superposition of an object.

P.S. I think I just realized where the confusion is. The actual screen itself represents an instrument of measurement. It is the same as making an observation.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:31 pm

sorry you are quite right ginkgo the observing collapses the wave out of super position.super position would then have to be described as semi local or nolocal.if consciousness where nonlocal and in omni present super position to the local brain function would this explain the collaps of the wave function some how.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:41 am

You've not addressed my comments about neuronal nets nor answered what the word 'consciousness' means to you?

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:45 am

arising neural function is local action.consciousness is seperate and nonlocal to that neural action.it has to be in super position to any action.why because it consciouness is un moving.it consciousness is sizeless to any action.the omni presents of nonlocality fits the bill.spooky action at a distance gives us a clue as to the nature of consciousness as dose super position in q m.consciousness can not be an energy construct of its self to make the self.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:04 am

You've not said what you mean by 'consciousness'? What does it mean to you? What are you describing?

jackles wrote:arising neural function is local action.consciousness is seperate and nonlocal to that neural action. ...

Show me a non-local consciousness?

it has to be in super position to any action.why because it consciouness is un moving. ...

What do you mean by 'un-moving'?

it consciousness is sizeless to any action.the omni presents of nonlocality fits the bill.spooky action at a distance gives us a clue as to the nature of consciousness as dose super position in q m.consciousness can not be an energy construct of its self to make the self.

Until you can tell me what you mean by 'consciousness' I'll think this all pointless science-based metaphysics, sounds nice but ultimately meaningless.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:45 am

consciousness is the relativity between objects.without the objects.and its the relativity of feelings without the feelings.so if we look out into a stary sky no matter how far back we are looking time wise the relativity between objects is still instantainiously in consciousness.the sizeless feeling thats looking at the stary sky no matter where or when is what caused that stary sky to be in existance.in other words the big bang took place inside the omni presents of nonlocality.which is existance with or without event.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:52 am

jackles wrote:consciousness is the relativity between objects.without the objects.and its the relativity of feelings without the feelings. ...

There is no relativity between objects without the objects. The is no relativity of feelings without the feelings.

so if we look out into a stary sky no matter how far back we are looking time wise the relativity between objects is still instantainiously in consciousness. ...

When we look out into the starry sky there is no 'time-wise' in the phenomenon, this is an abstract from thought.

the sizeless feeling thats looking at the stary sky no matter where or when is what caused that stary sky to be in existence. ...

What 'size less' feeling? The starry sky looks very big.

in other words the big bang took place inside the omni presents of nonlocality.which is existance with or without event.

There is no existence without an event. No matter how you try you will always be in an infinite regress with such thoughts as your non-locality will always logically be a locality.

Are you saying that consciousness is to see and to feel? If so then I agree that to be conscious is to be a body with senses in an external world. To be this consciousness is to be three interacting feedback systems, the skeletal/muscular(I include the cardiovascular and digestive in this) system, the endocrine system and the central nervous system(sets of neuronal nets with their own feedback systems), in an external world.