The Central Role of Consciousness in Physics

[Royce]

I referred to it in another thread on this forum in a discussion with mentat.

If from the materialist view point all that exist is matter and energy. Thought, thinking, is obviously not matter so it must be energy. The mind being made up of pure thought must then be pure energy. The brain is the hardware and wiring that makes all of this possible. The mind, energy, is the result of the brains activity.
Since energy can and does effect matter, our minds and thoughts can and do effect the matter that is our bodies and through our bodies effect the rest of our material world. Thus thought which is subjective can effect and control matter which is material.

I expanded on this saying that the mind may be the portal through which the spiritual realm of reality interacts with the material reality. The spiritual world is in this instance, God, the Creator.
Since I am not allowed to use the terms idealism or metaphysics because in my ignorance I use them wrongly , I must refer to this part of reality as the spiritual reguardless of its unfavorable connotations.

My view point is that there are three facets of reality, the spiritual, the subjective and the material and that they are all interactive and merely parts of the one ultimate reality. Also, that the spiritual, God, is the ultimate or prime cause of all that is.
That the material is the effect rather than the cause. This I have in other threads compared to the three characteristics of Man, the spiritual or soul which is part of the spirit of God, the subjective mind, and the material body. I have said numerous times that this is only my opinion and view point and that I have no physical material or objective support or evidence.

Mentat and I have been having ongoing conversations and discussions on this and similar topics since I first joined the PF's and of course others have joined in and followed these discussions. I often refer to things that have been said at other times in other threads. I realize that this can be hard to follow and make what I say incoherent,illogical and even foolish if taken at face value out of context of the ongoing dialog.

I also say that there is evidence that is anecdotal and subjective that supports and afferms this view point and that it is not original with me nor just my personal experience and thoughts that have lead to this view point.

This is as simple, clear and consise as I can make it.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Royce
If from the materialist view point all that exist is matter and energy.

Materialists put matter and energy in the same category of existence. This equivocation is warranted by Einstein's relativity, wherein mass and energy are found to be equivalent. I would say that the real categories of existence are, roughly:

1. Concrete Objects: Things that take up space.
2. Abstract Objects: Things that exist as concepts.

Category #1 is held to be independent of consciousness, while Category #2 is completely dependent on it. Abstract objects cannot be without a mind to think of them.

Thought, thinking, is obviously not matter so it must be energy. The mind being made up of pure thought must then be pure energy. The brain is the hardware and wiring that makes all of this possible. The mind, energy, is the result of the brains activity.

Thought is not energy. If it were, then one should be able to convert one's thoughts into matter a la Einstein. If that were the case, I would have thought myself up a real, material Porsche 911 convertible a long time ago.

Thought is something the brain does, just like walking is something the legs do. Walking is not energy, any more than thought is.

Since energy can and does effect matter, our minds and thoughts can and do effect the matter that is our bodies and through our bodies effect the rest of our material world. Thus thought which is subjective can effect and control matter which is material.

Hopefully you can see now that this is wrong.

You go on to talk about subjective evidence again, but at no point do you address the argument I gave, and the one to which I keep referring. That being the case, I see no reason to argue against your subjective evidence again.

This is as simple, clear and consise as I can make it.

Thanks for the effort, but I never thought you were being overly complicated, unclear, or longwinded. I just think that what you presented here is both false and illogical, for the reasons I gave.

 

[Mumeishi]

If from the materialist view point all that exist is matter and energy. Thought, thinking, is obviously not matter so it must be energy. The mind being made up of pure thought must then be pure energy.

Woah! There's some serious flaws in your argument there friend.
Premise 1: According to the materialist view, all things are either matter or energy.
Premise 2: Thought exists
Premise 3: Thought is 'obviously' not matter
Conclusion: Therefore thought is energy

First of all, there is a variety of materialist views. Anyway, to be more precise, there is only energy, since matter is just a particular form of energy (how does that affect your argument?)

Secondly, the materialist view that all that exists is energy and matter is not necessarily correct. And is it clear that they mean that this is the only sort of property that exists - the only defining characteristics to describe reality, or could they just mean that this is the only fundamental sort of 'substance'? To illustrate my question, what is the difference between a 20kg mountain bike and a 20kg microwave oven? The answer is form, or organisation. What is the difference between a 1kJoule telephone message wishing you luck and a 1kJ telephone message of abuse? Again the answer is form, organisation or information.

I would argue that mental states are informational properties of the brain. It doesn't really matter what the brain is composed of, all that matters is the information it has and what it does with it.

The brain is the hardware and wiring that makes all of this possible. The mind, energy, is the result of the brains activity.
Since energy can and does effect matter, our minds and thoughts can and do effect the matter that is our bodies and through our bodies effect the rest of our material world. Thus thought which is subjective can effect and control matter which is material.

I think you are confused. Matter does not produce energy. Matter is energy, and energy only changes form it is neither created nor destroyed.

I expanded on this saying that the mind may be the portal through which the spiritual realm of reality interacts with the material reality. The spiritual world is in this instance, God, the Creator.
Since I am not allowed to use the terms idealism or metaphysics because in my ignorance I use them wrongly , I must refer to this part of reality as the spiritual reguardless of its unfavorable connotations.

Hmmm... Perhaps you could use the term 'Celestial Realm' or 'Astral Plane' - that's essentially what you are saying.

My view point is that there are three facets of reality, the spiritual, the subjective and the material and that they are all interactive and merely parts of the one ultimate reality. Also, that the spiritual, God, is the ultimate or prime cause of all that is.
That the material is the effect rather than the cause. This I have in other threads compared to the three characteristics of Man, the spiritual or soul which is part of the spirit of God, the subjective mind, and the material body. I have said numerous times that this is only my opinion and view point and that I have no physical material or objective support or evidence.

Hmmm... How would they interact anyway? By the way, energy is not 'spiritual' any more than matter is - it is 100% physical.

I also say that there is evidence that is anecdotal and subjective that supports and afferms this view point and that it is not original with me nor just my personal experience and thoughts that have lead to this view point.

Like what? Anecdotes don't count for much in the world of science, except inspiration to start collecting real data parhaps.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Tom
Materialists put matter and energy in the same category of existence. This equivocation is warranted by Einstein's relativity, wherein mass and energy are found to be equivalent. I would say that the real categories of existence are, roughly:

1. Concrete Objects: Things that take up space.
2. Abstract Objects: Things that exist as concepts.

Category #1 is held to be independent of consciousness, while Category #2 is completely dependent on it. Abstract objects cannot be without a mind to think of them.

Yes, Tom, I agree with everything that you say here. I was invovled in the original dscussion in another thread and was using his definition of martialism. He would not admit that any abstrat or subjecttive thing actually exists, now he will not even admit that thought exists or that thinking is made up of thoughts. I was therefore very limited in what I could discuss and the way that I could discuss it. In our world, the one that we actually live in rather than Einstein's world it is convient to speak of matter and energy as separate forms of material, even though we know that they are really diffent forms of the same thing.

Thought is not energy. If it were, then one should be able to convert one's thoughts into matter a la Einstein. If that were the case, I would have thought myself up a real, material Porsche 911 convertible a long time ago.

Again I was addressing Mentat and trying to make the point that thought exists. As thought is the result of electrochemical processes of the physical brain, information is encoded on the energy produced by these processes thus it can be said that thought is or consists of energy, that thought is the result of a physical process involving energy and thus exists. I think that when looked at this way it is a valid point, a means of tying the objective and subjective realm together and allowing the subjective to exist in Mentats material world.
Using E=MC^2 It would take a whole lot of thought to make even a hubcap much less a 911.

Thought is something the brain does, just like walking is something the legs do. Walking is not energy, any more than thought is.

No, walking is not energy but it does take energy to walk and the command impulses that the brain sends to the legs to walk is a form of electrchemical energy, just as thought must be as that is the only known media in which the brain works.

Hopefully you can see now that this is wrong.

Hopefully you can see now that what I am saying, while it may not be in presice scientific language, is thought is a form of energy or at least impossed on or encoded in electrochemical energy.

You go on to talk about subjective evidence again, but at no point do you address the argument I gave, and the one to which I keep referring. That being the case, I see no reason to argue against your subjective evidence again.
__________________________________

Royce, tell me, how can you know something apart from perceiving it? And furthermore, how can I know that you know something, apart from verifying your perceptions with my own?

Until you or anyone else can answer that satisfactorily, I'm sticking with what I said.
___________________________________

Tom I think that this statement is what you are referring to above.
The answer is of course that We can't know anyhing apart from perceivig it; nor can you or anybody else know without verifying themselves my perception. I can only write about them as best I can and you can only compare what I say with your own experiences or with others who have written about this. This is why this whole topic is philosopy and not science. If we could verify these thing with ibjective evidence then it would become science. As I said we can only take each others word for it. This is not the exact opposite of what we do in science, especially those of us who are not scientist.

Thanks for the effort, but I never thought you were being overly complicated, unclear, or longwinded. I just think that what you presented here is both false and illogical, for the reasons I gave.

No, tom, thank you for making me make the effort to make my thinking as clear to myself as I can so that I can better express myself and my thoughts.

Part of the reason that I am here is to bounce my thoughts off of other to see it they have any validy and logic or if they are just mental rambings or masterbation. It is all to easy to fool ourselves into thinking that we are brilliantly cleaver until we expose our ideas to others and find what an ass we can make of ourselves.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Please read that part of my post again. You say I am wrong then say the same thing that I did. First we perceive. All perceptions are subjective. perceptions in this case are interpretation of our sensory inputs.

No, you implied that the primary experience is of that which only exists in our own mind (subjective experience), when in fact the first thing we experience is the objective...we can't even contemplate subjectivity until long after we've accepted objectivity.

We have been over this before, Mentat. There is no evidence that the Big Bang actually took place. The only real evidence that supports it is the value of the background microwave radiation detected by COBE
is the same or nearly so as it would be if the BB did take place about when we think that it would. If you have other hard evidence of the BB then please direct me to it because I have yet to be able to find it.

How about the fact that the Universe is expanding? That is also a prediction of the Big Bang theory.

I base my comment about string theory on what little I have read and mainly on the NOVA program that I watched Tuesday evening called the Elegant Universe hosted by Brian Green. Those are the only two theories that I mentioned anything about. So maybe you had better tell Brian Greene and John Gribbin that they are not educated enough in those subjects to make comments.

They do not say that you cannot prove string theory, or that it's based on mere conjecture. Ed Witten (who'd be my idol, if I didn't already have a God), has already postulated empirical ways to test M-Theory.

I have to get off-line right now. Sorry. I will continue response tomorrow, maybe, but I think you should heed what Tom has been saying; I think he's pretty much covered my side of the debate better than I could hope to.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Woah! There's some serious flaws in your argument there friend.
Premise 1: According to the materialist view, all things are either matter or energy.
Premise 2: Thought exists
Premise 3: Thought is 'obviously' not matter
Conclusion: Therefore thought is energy

First of all, there is a variety of materialist views. Anyway, to be more precise, there is only energy, since matter is just a particularform of energy (how does that affect your argument?)

First please read my reply to Tom above as you both put forth a number of the same arguments. Next that energy is all there is actually makes my point easier to make it we can agree that even within a materialistic paradigm, thought and thinking does exist.
Mentat would not allow me that luxury. I had to show that thoughts were the result of electrochemical activity of the brain and thus electrochemical energy, a result of material processes so that they would be allowed to exists in his materialistic world.

Secondly, the materialist view that all that exists is energy and matter is not necessarily correct. And is it clear that they mean that this is the only sort of property that exists - the only defining characteristics to describe reality, or could they just mean that this is the only fundamental sort of 'substance'? To illustrate my question, what is the difference between a 20kg mountain bike and a 20kg microwave oven? The answer is form, or organisation. What is the difference between a 1kJoule telephone message wishing you luck and a 1kJ telephone message of abuse? Again the answer is form, organisation or information.

I would argue that mental states are informational properties of the brain. It doesn't really matter what the brain is composed of, all that matters is the information it has and what it does with it.

Unfortunately information does not exist ether in mantat's materialistic world. A number of us have tried to get across that very point but were unable to.

I think you are confused. Matter does not produce energy. Matter is energy, and energy only changes form it is neither created nor destroyed.

I did not say, or at least mean to say, that matter produces energy'
What I meant was the the brain work with electrochemical energy and converts it or modifies this energy by impress or encoding information on it. In order to make any point or discuss at all with Mentat I was forced to argue totally within the strict materialistic view and limits that he created.

Hmmm... How would they interact anyway? By the way, energy is not 'spiritual' any more than matter is - it is 100% physical.

This I have not yet figured out myself. I had enough problem coming up with how the subjective realm of thought can effect the objective material realm of matter.

Like what? Anecdotes don't count for much in the world of science, except inspiration to start collecting real data parhaps.

That is why this is philosophy and not science. This is the philosophy section of the Physics forum and not one of the scientific
sections or boards.

 

[Rader]

This thread in this forum has a lot of pros and cons. All of our own opinions are based on who we are and what we have read and obsorbed and accepted in our lifetime for one reason or another, be they from what ever source. There is a lot of important minds out there that agree and disagree with many of us.

Let me quote the ideas of the eminent theoretical physicist David Bohm, he was one of Einsteins old collaborators.

He sees things as implicit holgrafic order. This discovery has converted holografics in a fundamental element of the scientific world. His inspired work on holgrafics has created a model of the universe envolving multiple paradoxes in cuantum mechanics. According to Bohm the world we perceive through the five sences and the nervous system with or without the use of scientific instruments only represents a small fragment of reality. From his point of view what we percieve constituts explained order, a partial aspect of a larger matrix that denominates implied order. In other words what we perceive as reality is similar to a holgrafic projection coming from a superior matrix. So the vision of Bohm of implied order is described at a level that is unacessable to our senses. Read his book "The totality of implicit order" a vision that offers modern physics the existing relationship between consciousness and matter. Bohm says the reality is a total reality, coherant and implied in a interminable process of change called holomovement. From this point of view all structures in the universe are only abstract. So it is that no matter how hard we try to describe objects, entities or events, we have to come to the conclusion admitting that all are derived from a indifinable unrecognizable totality. According to Bohm the holografic theory that illustrates the idea that energy, light and matter are all composites of pacekts of interference waves that interchange information between all other energy, light and matter directly or indirectly that they have made contact. So each fragment of energy and matter constitute a microcosmos enclosed in the totality of it all. So should we not surmise then, that life in terms of inanimate matter. Matter and life<>matter and consciousness
are abstractions of holmovement, that is to say abstrations of a indivisable totality that can not be seperated. Whatever perception or whatever knowledge including so called scientific does not constitute objective reality but a creative activity comparable to artistic expression. We can not measure the true reality because reality is essentially unmeasurable. Study the work of David Bohm and Karl Pibram a neurofisiologist if you wish more info. Bohms holografic model gives us the revolutionary possibility to understand the relationship that exists between the part and the totality.

 

[Mentat]

Royce, I'm goint to take the advice I was given long ago, by a very wise friend, and "stop kicking this dead horse". I think that Tom and Mumeishi are doing excellent without me, and I don't think that any of us can convince you that your beliefs are wrong, since belief is beyond proof and beyond objectivity. If you believe in something, and believe it beyond logic and science, then how could you possibly be convinced otherwise?

btw, the person who told me to stop kicking the dead horse was you, on another thread where belief stood in the way of pure rationalization. I'm taking your good advice this time .

 

[Royce]

Mentat, I don't think that it is fair at all to keep throwing my own words back in my face. Just like you playing the devils advocate I am defending or supporting a philosophical position that I don't hold as a personal belief. I was a game in which I was trying to score, make points within your strict limits and definitions. It was an enjoyable exercise in mental gymnastics. Whether you admit it or not I think that I did pretty well.

Now with Tom, if he decides to continue with the discussion and Mumeishi the game has changed and we are starting all over with different definitions and limits.

I do believe that my view and my points are valid as far as they go but is is still too simplistic and needs filling out. The question of objective reality vs subjective and spiritual reality will never be satisfactorily answered here or anyplace else on earth. It will always be subjective and suportable only by subjective evidence. There is no way that objective evidence can apply to a purely subjective topic. It is and always will be a point of view of philosophy and never science.

There is no way that I can argue sujectivism against an objective materialist as he would never except purely subjective evidence.
I think Tom and I are very close to agreement with the exception that I am coming from a spiritual paradigm and he as a scientist can see nor accept any evidence of the spiritual. I think that we do come together in the belief of the objective and subjective.

I'm sure that we will soon be pitting our wits again on another thread until then, my friend.