Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Interactive SFN Forums
 Comments on Articles
 The Truth About The Bible And Evolution
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  15:59:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker
So, every force seems to be either a particle or a wave. Quantum theory seems to imply that it can be both, based on context.

You do not need to agree with me, but why call my ideas insane, when every force we know can be plausibly defined as a particle?
Because consciousness is not a "force."

Do you have a better idea, or just like calling others ideas insane?
Why do I need to have a better idea to recognize a bad one?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

Farseeker
Skeptic Friend

Canada
76 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  16:00:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Farseeker a Private Message  Reply with Quote
If I can believe in virtual particles, negative energy and multiple dimensions (as per string theory) then I can believe in a consciousness particle as a hypothesis.

You believe in such things?


I believe it is a valid hypothesis or theory. Don't you? For example, virtual particles? Not as a fact, but as a possibility within the concept of accepted scientific theories?

What about "dark matter"? Not as a fact, but as a possibility?

Ted
Go to Top of Page

Farseeker
Skeptic Friend

Canada
76 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  16:13:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Farseeker a Private Message  Reply with Quote
But it does not follow that anything made of matter and/or energy is also conserved. The number of neutrons in the universe is not conserved. So even if consciousness were a particle, there's no reason to think that it would be conserved.


As I am sure you know, a neutron is an electron and a proton. If in a vacuum, it has a half life of only 15 minutes. Then it reverts to more elementary particles.

Even the electron and proton are not at the bottom. They are composed of quarks, or which there are many kinds. We just do not know where the bottom is. But we observe the universe and postulate theories. Symmetry, laws of conservation (eg: charge, spin, momentum), but we have no idea about consciousness, other than some studies pointing to the fact that sub atomic particles seem to be aware of their environment. See prior post for research done in Israel. I never said a "consciousness particle" was the answer, just a valid idea that bears studying. Oh, and by the way, it seems most forces have a particle associated with them, at least on the theoretical frontier..

So, I have no idea if the theoretical particle called a graviton exists. But it is a valid hypothesis.
Go to Top of Page

Farseeker
Skeptic Friend

Canada
76 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  16:41:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Farseeker a Private Message  Reply with Quote
[quote]Originally posted by Farseeker
So, every force seems to be either a particle or a wave. Quantum theory seems to imply that it can be both, based on context.

You do not need to agree with me, but why call my ideas insane, when every force we know can be plausibly defined as a particle?
Because consciousness is not a "force."

Do you have a better idea, or just like calling others ideas insane?

Why do I need to have a better idea to recognize a bad one? [/quote/

You do not. You are a critic.
Fine, while I disagree with your "belief" based view of the world, I would fight for your right to have your "non-evidenced" based beliefs. Some of my best friends believe in... well, let's not get personal..

we are done
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  16:52:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker
You do not. You are a critic.
Fine, while I disagree with your "belief" based view of the world, I would fight for your right to have your "non-evidenced" based beliefs.
What "non-evidence based beliefs" are you accusing me of holding exactly? You were the one who put forth a non-evidence based belief in consciousness particles. It's obnoxiously dishonest to falsely accuse me of something you just did.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/14/2010 16:53:10
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  17:22:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker

How do you get to say there is no evidence?
I haven't seen any, and can't find any. What you posted suggests (at best - the source seems unreliable) that particles are conscious, not that there is a particle responsible for human consciousness.
Have you read ALL the literature and come up with that conclusion?
Have you read ALL the literature relating to cholesterol and CVD? No? Hypocrite.
How about a simple Google question to see if there is at least some evidence?
Since your "simple Google question" apparently failed to find anything relevant to your hypothesis, I don't see it as a reliable method for gathering data.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  17:25:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker

I believe it is a valid hypothesis or theory. Don't you?
Assessing a hypothesis as valid is completely different from "believing in" it. I don't know why you'd use "believe in" as a shorthand for acceptance based on scientific knowledge.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  17:44:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker

As I am sure you know, a neutron is an electron and a proton.
Wow. No, I know no such thing. A neutron in free space undergoes beta decay of one of its down quarks into an up quark (creating a proton) by releasing a W boson, which itself then decays into an electron and an electron antineutrino.
If in a vacuum, it has a half life of only 15 minutes. Then it reverts to more elementary particles.
Not because it's made of them.
Even the electron and proton are not at the bottom. They are composed of quarks, or which there are many kinds.
No, electrons are not composed of quarks (of which there are precisely six flavors: up, down, top, bottom, charm and strange). There is no known substructure to electrons: they are thought to be truly elementary.
We just do not know where the bottom is. But we observe the universe and postulate theories. Symmetry, laws of conservation (eg: charge, spin, momentum), but we have no idea about consciousness...
"We have no idea about consciousness" just isn't true. How can you know such a thing? Have you read ALL the literature?
...other than some studies pointing to the fact that sub atomic particles seem to be aware of their environment.
Apparently, you've hardly read any of the consciousness research. If that stuff from Jay Alfred is all you've read, then really you've read none of the research.
I never said a "consciousness particle" was the answer, just a valid idea that bears studying.
How is it a "valid idea?" From what theory or observation does it stem?
Oh, and by the way, it seems most forces have a particle associated with them, at least on the theoretical frontier..
More ignorance: under the Standard Model, all forces are carried by particles.
So, I have no idea if the theoretical particle called a graviton exists. But it is a valid hypothesis.
It's valid because it stems from known observations and working theories. Nobody just "dreamt up" a graviton, it falls out of the equations as necessarily existing.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Farseeker
Skeptic Friend

Canada
76 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2010 :  00:11:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Farseeker a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Have you read ALL the literature relating to cholesterol and CVD? No? Hypocrite.


No I have not. But then, I did not say there is no evidence, you did.

When in doubt, call people names.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2010 :  01:17:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker
As I am sure you know, a neutron is an electron and a proton.

No, an electron and a proton is a hydrogen atom.
A neutron is three quarks, not an electron and a proton. That a neutron decay through beta-radiation is a completely different thing.


Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2010 :  01:29:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker
See prior post for research done in Israel.

You quoted an unknown source and said so. But you provided no link to the source.
This is something you really need to remedy:
Standard procedure when providing a quote is to also include a link to the source, so the rest of us can double-check the relevance and context of said quote. Otherwise you can just be bullshitting us. This is something creationists are very good at: either misquoting the source, misrepresenting the source, or just quoting a layman's mistaken interpretation of a scientific finding.

In this case, I'm pretty sure your Israeli scientist did not write in his scientific paper that the electron can feel it is being observed. That sounds just insane and something a clueless reporter would write for a popular newspaper.
But we have no way of checking.
It's your argument, and thus your obligation to provide the evidence (ie. a link to the source).


Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2010 :  07:23:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker

No I have not. But then, I did not say there is no evidence, you did.
It is nothing more than a double-standard to complain about someone coming to a particular conclusion without reading "ALL" the literature when you have done the same thing (which conclusion has been reached is irrelevant). If you refuse to hold yourself to the same high levels of logic and evidence that you hold other people, then your statements about being skeptical or engaging in critical thought are less than credible.
When in doubt, call people names.
Shall I go back through your posts here and point out all the places that you've been insulting? Apparently, you hold other people to a different standard of civility than you hold yourself, too. And you've got such a thin skin that when you get called a name, you're willing to just forget about the substantive issues that were being discussed, and focus solely on the affront that you've been dealt.

Of course, "when in doubt" is an odd formulation, since skepticism entails a certain level of doubt. You've been criticizing people here (and doctors in general) for failures to maintain appropriate levels of doubt, but then say "when in doubt" as if uncertainty itself were a flaw. Should I be "in doubt?" Wasn't my lack of doubt what you were complaining about right here?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2010 :  08:46:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

You quoted an unknown source and said so. But you provided no link to the source.
This is something you really need to remedy:
I did Farseeker's homework for him after reading his quotes. The article, "Conscious Particles, Fields and Waves," is an "Ezine" piece by Jay Alfred, filed under the category "Paranormal." One can also find it on Alfred's own site and republished on a dozen or so other "woo" sites.
In this case, I'm pretty sure your Israeli scientist did not write in his scientific paper that the electron can feel it is being observed. That sounds just insane and something a clueless reporter would write for a popular newspaper.
But we have no way of checking.
Well, we can stick particular quotes into Google and see what happens...
"In some strange way an electron or a photon [or any other elementary particle] seems to 'know' about changes in the environment and appears to respond accordingly," says physicist Danah Zohar."
Putting "seems to 'know' about changes in the environment and appears to respond accordingly" into Google only results in copies of Alfred's piece. At least Danah Zohar seems to be a real person, but she seems to have gone over the edge into quantum woo, going so far as to claim that along with IQ, there is a "Spiritual Intelligence" that can be measured analogously. I wouldn't trust anything she's got to say about quantum physics. After all, physics was her undergrad major, and so it's not like she's a working physicist. I wouldn't put any more credence in her words about particles than I do Deepak Chopra's.

One E. Buks wrote a letter to Nature in 1998 about dephasing electron interference in a double-slit experiment, but the abstract doesn't mention consciousness or even anything out of the ordinary (the full letter is behind a paywall). Comments from E. Buks about electrons "sensing" anything aren't actual quotes in Alfred's piece, and so can be considered to be the author dumbing things down.
Renowned plasma and particle physicist, David Bohm, says "In some sense a rudimentary mind-like quality is present even at the level of particle physics. As we go to subtler levels this mind-like quality becomes stronger and more developed."
This quote is taken from David Bohm's "A New Theory of the Relationship of Mind and Matter," which was originally published in a journal called Philosophical Psychology (!) in 1990 (!!), and which attempts to portray mind as an outcome of "the causal interpretation of the quantum theory," but this is another example of a person leaving his realm of expertise. Anyone who approvingly cites The Dancing Wu-Li Masters has left science for religio-spiritual nonsense. Make no mistake, Bohm was a brilliant physicist and made many good contributions, but this article was going way outside his field, and was written three years after he retired and probably while he was heading towards a deep depression.

I'm not going to continue. The above three people are the ones mentioned in Farseeker's quote from Jay Alfred's piece. There are many more in the rest of the piece, but I'm not about to fisk the whole thing. Suffice it to say that even though Richard Feynman is mentioned at least twice, he would have found the piece to be a silly bit of "Cargo Cult Science."

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2010 :  19:38:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
In some strange way an electron or a photon [or any other elementary particle] seems to 'know' about changes in the environment and appears to respond accordingly," says physicist Danah Zohar.


I really wonder how you go from the above quote to concluding that there is any form of consciousness involved. Should we also conclude that water is conscious since it knows when to become ice and gas?

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 08/15/2010 :  21:40:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Hawks

I really wonder how you go from the above quote to concluding that there is any form of consciousness involved.
Jay Alfred's piece doesn't even tell us the answer to that. In it, the majority of the section headers basically announce, "here's where I'm going to jump to an unrelated subject and not actually tell you how to get from one to the other." We go from conscious particles to holographic memories to "subtle bodies" and the "Physical-Etheric Nucleus" (which isn't actually described) to conscious waves (with a pathetically naive understanding of wave/particle duality) to "proto-conscious qualia" to the "Atman field." It flits from one subject to the next like a quantum-woo drunkard's walk, with little coherence between ideas expressed in the printed word (it might exist in the author's head, but it's not evident in that piece).
Should we also conclude that water is conscious since it knows when to become ice and gas?
The funniest part is this:
Hence, elementary particles will exhibit their intrinsic degree of consciousness when isolated or when a group of particles share the same quantum state. This means that bulk matter in a non-coherent state is effectively unconscious.
Since "bulk matter in a non-coherent state" describes the human brain, we should obviously conclude that humans aren't conscious. The contradiction seems lost on the author.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.56 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000