Henry Stapp - Is Consciousness an Illusion?
19 Replies, 451 Views
This post has been deleted.
Max_B Wrote:Max_B Max_B Wrote:I dislike the term 'consciousness', it suggests it is a thing, something separate. I prefer to use the term 'experience', and I can't see any way that one can get outside of ones experience. Max_B Wrote:Why is it narrow? and how did you intend these things to connect up to your point about things we label as identifying patterns and solving problems, as somehow - I'm assuming - being outside of experience? So you refer to consciousness as “experience”. The keyword “experience” is defined as (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experience) Quote:a I don’t find abstract reasoning on this list. (2024-10-07, 09:18 AM)Max_B Wrote: We already know from Juan Maldacena's AdS/CFT correspondence, that information is not likely joined up in the classical way that we naively understand our experiences, i.e. that is that event's are not really causally connected in the way we popularly understand them. Max_B, Do you actually understand what that is all about? If so, you must be in the top echelons of Theoretical Physics (which is entirely possible because just about everyone here writes under a pseudonym) and should be capable of explaining some of this to the rest of us: 1) Does this theory displace some of standard High Energy Physics, or is it a new way of representing it? 2) I am always wary of anything that references wormholes, because these seem to be highly speculative. 3) Stapp's theory as to how consciousness affects the physical universe is pretty intuitive if you understand QM. When a conscious entity observes a QM system, it will collapse it into an eigenstate. Then the system will remain in that state, or drift off as a result of slight perturbations from the environment. After this happens a further conscious decision to observe the system will collapse it into another eigenstate, which may or may not be the say as the last one. This is the essence of Stapp's theory - that consciousness is essential to complete the QM process. Is that a process you agree with, and if it is, does it really need augmenting with Nima Arkani-Hamed's theory? I have long understood that Henry Stapp has solved the connection between consciousness (or perhaps the soul) and physical matter. David (2024-10-07, 06:57 PM)sbu Wrote: So you refer to consciousness as “experience”. The keyword “experience” is defined as (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experience) I'm not sure why you think identifying patterns and solving problems etc, are not part of your experience, they are certainly part of my experience.
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. (2024-10-07, 07:51 PM)David001 Wrote: Max_B, As I said above, Nima's theory is a new way of calculating scattering amplitudes... that theory doesn't mention consciousness or the soul at all... but he would be first to volunteer that it goes much much deeper than calculating scattering amplitudes. He claims that QM and Spacetime emerge hand in hand from a from a far more primitive mathematical structure. You would need to watch Nima's video's to understand the theory.
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. (2024-10-07, 09:07 PM)Max_B Wrote: As I said above, Nima's theory is a new way of calculating scattering amplitudes... Yes, but which sort of scattering - e.g. electrons off solid hydrogen, or whatever. Also is there any reason to think that this method for calculating scattering amplitudes is preferable to other ways? Then there is the question as to why this would help in explaining consciousness! David (2024-10-08, 10:55 AM)Laird Wrote: Cross-referencing this thread with the thread Henry Stapp - Is Consciousness Entirely Physical? Since there is no discussion in the other thread, and they both refer to the same video, wouldn't it be simpler to just delete the other thread? David (2024-10-08, 03:09 PM)Laird Wrote: They're different videos. Yeah I thought of having a singular [thread] but the answers are different enough that it seemed worth it to discuss them separately. Stapp is more comfortably dualist, whereas Lanier seems more like a reluctant possible dualist. Their reasons differ as do their positions.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
(This post was last modified: 2024-10-08, 07:53 PM by Sciborg_S_Patel.)
- Bertrand Russell |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)