surreptitious57 wrote:I would argue that there is a difference between perception and knowledge. Perception is a subtle awareness of something without fully understanding it whereas knowledge is an understanding of it. So for example I can perceive rocket science is
a difficult subject to master although I know next to nothing about it. And I think that while perception and knowledge are different that they are on the same spectrum albeit at opposite ends

Various cognitive visual illusions demonstrate that perception is not simply experiencing what's there. Some working out is going on to decide what experience we have. I see no reason to think that this is not the case for some subset of perceptions.

This is not about "fully understanding" or comprehending a wider context. Whether a smudge looks like a face, or whether some patches of identical wavelength light appear as wildly different colours or not has to be unconsciously evaluated.

It seems to me that this behind the scenes computation that leads to perception or this, or that, or unperceived, is likely to be the similar in nature as the basis of all mental phenomena. Why should we not think of perceiving thoughts that come to mind? Why should we not think of a sense of knowing as form of perception similar to any other, and as susceptible to error as any other?

There is a temptation to think of mental phenomena as somehow directly known, and knowledge as somehow, ineffably, built on raw perceptions. I think this is so only because we have no possibility to attend to the processes that do the work.

Agrippina wrote:... I'm 105 years old.

Really?

the_5th_ape wrote:Really?

What do you think?

Agrippina wrote:

the_5th_ape wrote:Really?

What do you think?

I don't think so

GrahamH wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E
Explained ! The Double Slit Experiment Thomas Campbell ex NASA physicist.
Showing that even if you allow the detector running but don’t collect the data you still get the same result as if you had switched it off.

That's a claim I haven't heard before. Photon detectors in place and working but no tape in the data logger and interference patterns result.

The claim is here ~2:30 https://youtu.be/LW6Mq352f0E?t=2m18s

Any physics types here know what that's about?

[ETA]
This topic on Physics Forums suggests the calim is bunk:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/d ... ng.414617/

Firstly, some of the questions, statements and answers are not factual and some are biased.
And I want to say that while I agree with some of Campbell's theory, i.e., the "reality is a simulation" part, I do not agree with him on his other claims eg that "the ego is fear based" and that "God is an information system, which is imperfect and evolving." So I want to say clearly, I am not defending Campbell. I am pointing out inconsistencies.

The question asked was: “Physicist Thomas Campbell makes the following claim (at 2:45) if you leave the detectors turned on, but you throw away the data from the detectors without looking at it, you get a wave interference pattern on the screen behind the slits. Is this true?”
(Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/d ... ng.414617/)
Is not even accurate.

In the video you will not hear those words.
I’ll give you the transcript from 2min 29 to about 3mins 40 secs

At 2mins 29 secs he say: “so then there was thinking so it’s the detectors that is making the difference. When we detect it we get this (he points to the two bands) and when we don’t detect it we get this” (he points to diffraction pattern)

At 2mins 34secs he says: “So whether it was just luck or whether it was that they were clever, I don’t know, but fortunately one of them decided to leave the detectors on because if they turned off the detectors entirely of course they got this ” (he points to diffraction pat tern again ) and the idea was well the detectors are interfering.

At 2mins 52secs “So somebody decided to leave the detectors on but just not take any data.”
He elaborates on what he means saying: “in other words the detectors were there detecting but they just were not collecting any data.”

And he further elaborates by saying: “So let’s say if it was going to a magnetic tape then there was no magnetic tape loaded, okay. The head of the tape was still showing what the detectors said. The head of the tape was still oscillating because the detectors were still working. The detectors were still detecting but what do you think happened? They got this” (he points to diffraction pattern again ). “They got the diffraction pattern, okay”

At 3mins 25secs “So what it turned is that if they looked, if they collected the data, okay, then they get this (video zooms in where there is two bands). “And if they didn’t collect the data and they weren’t looking, they got this” (video zooms in on the diffraction pattern).

So it let them know that it was the actual conscious act of taking the data that made the difference as to whether light was a wave or light was a particle. Well that was a really big deal!”

He has said nothing about collecting data and then throwing it away without looking at it as the question asked. And notice too that he begins by making a statement, which is general and thus meaningless.

He says: If you place a detector on one or both of the slits, the electrons do not form an interference pattern. It matters if the detectors are on or off and if they are recording or not. The guy answering does not address the generality of the statement made.

And he did not bother to go and check what was actually said on the video.

If the data was collected and thrown away without looking I would agree with the physics forum guy that it would still give two bands because the act of recording means there is an irreversible process. His reasoning that “deleting the data does not induce any changes. It does not matter whether you throw away the data or look at it” is true.
So then he talks about quantum erasers, which I will deal with in another post.

However what I want to say here is that some of the "fathers of quantum mechanics" said things like:

It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness. Eugene Wigner http://www.azquotes.com/author/28077-Eu ... -mechanics



The observer cannot be left out of the description of the observation.
John Archibald Wheeler http://www.azquotes.com/author/15550-Jo ... ld_Wheeler

'Participant' is the incontrovertible new concept given by quantum mechanics. It strikes down the 'observer' of classical theory, the man who stands safely behind the thick glass wall and watches what goes on without taking part. It can't be done, quantum mechanics says it...May the universe in some sense be 'brought into being' by the participation of those who participate?
John Archibald Wheeler http://www.azquotes.com/author/15550-Jo ... ld_Wheeler

The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.
Bernard d'Espagnat http://www.azquotes.com/quote/584792

Why did Schrodinger make his thought experiment -that the cat is both dead and alive until we look?

It doesn't make sense that these guys, who are highly respected physicists, would make such claims if they had not checked out the measurement problem and determined if it was just the apparatus interference that destroyed the interference pattern or the involvement of a conscious observer. Sure there were other physicists that opposed them but they are also wedded to materialism. Which ones are right? Didn't they do their homework first before they made their claims?

I have looked and looked to find somewhere where it says "here is the experiment, we left the detectors on and not collected data and here it is we get this..." be it the diffraction pattern or the two bands. There is no where any such experiment recorded. And yet you get guys, like the one at the physics forum who says:

"No, it has not been proved in any experiment and it is just a plain wrong claim.
Whether there is an conscious observer at the end of the detection chain or not does not make any difference."

If it has not been proved then where is the experiment that disproves it?

Arnold Layne wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Where did the "universal observer" come from?

where from?
All I know is that it is eternal.

No you don't.

Have you met Little Idiot, by the way? You'd like him.

Who is Little Idiot? and why would I like him?

Agrippina wrote:Where did the "universal observer" come from?

It is ever existing.

surreptitious57 wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:
Science is based on experimental observation and from the findings hopefully
developing a theory. It is based on evidence not proofs. The theories are falsifiable

A hypothesis can be testable or non testable. If it is non testable then it is non scientific for it cannot be subject to
potential falsification. Even if actually true. If it is testable then it can be subject to potential falsification. I would
avoid using theory as a substitute for hypothesis as it has a very precise meaning in science which is not the same as
the lay definition. As it is a formal body of work that will incorporate multiple laws and principles which collectively
has been subjected to the most rigorous testing possible. It is the closest science gets to determining that something
is absolutely true. It cannot of course actually claim it is for it only deals in evidence not proof. But as close as it can

Sometimes theories are put forward and then tested. Einstein's theories of relativity were tested after he published them. He only had his own thought experiments as evidence to begin with.

If only deals in evidence because scientists cannot show the infinite number or very large number of cases that may exist to go from evidence to proof.

Sometimes a hypothesis or theory may not be testable for lack of technology so it cannot be ruled out as not testable.

surreptitious57 wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:
There is no evidence that consciousness is part of the mind. And there is no evidence
that either the mind nor consciousness are generated by the brain. It is only suggestion

Mind and consciousness are both functions of the brain else how are you able to read and understand these words
I have typed ? Your brain processes what your eyes are seeing and any response that you may be formulating. And
you could not do this now if you were not both awake [ consciousness ] and capable of thinking abstractly [ mind ]

There is NO evidence that either the mind or consciousness are generated by the brain.

My brain does process sensory information from my eyes BUT "seeing" is not done by the eyes. The eyes are mere detectors. AND there is no evidence that "seeing" is done in the brain. This is called the visual binding problem. There is plenty of evidence where in the brain colour is perceived and where shape is perceive etc., but there is no place in the brain where they are all brought together to form the picture we see. Seeing in done where? The same goes for my responses. There are thought processes but there is no central controlling unit in the brain.

The brain enables subjective physical experiences but who is it that is the experiencer? There is no where in the brain that we can point to, to say there is where the personal self is to be found. And there is no where in the brain that we can point to and say this is the source of consciousness. There are lots of theories but there is no good evidence that the brain generates either the mind or conciousness.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Where did the "universal observer" come from?

where from?
All I know is that it is eternal.

Stow the preaching, please.

I said "all I know is..." this is expressing a personal opinion not preaching.

It's your opinion that you know?

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E
Explained ! The Double Slit Experiment Thomas Campbell ex NASA physicist.
Showing that even if you allow the detector running but don’t collect the data you still get the same result as if you had switched it off.

That's a claim I haven't heard before. Photon detectors in place and working but no tape in the data logger and interference patterns result.

The claim is here ~2:30 https://youtu.be/LW6Mq352f0E?t=2m18s

Any physics types here know what that's about?

[ETA]
This topic on Physics Forums suggests the calim is bunk:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/d ... ng.414617/

The answer here is not quite right. And I want to answer it without bias, to give all sides so I need a bit more time.

Right. Having proven your incompetence in neuroscience and oncology, you're now gong to spew ignorance on the topic of quantum mechanics.

Your "spiritual" investigations obviously have not taught you much about humility, or accurate appraisal of one's own abilities.

I haven't professed to be an expert in neuroscience but oncology is another matter. IMO I can talk with more authority than an oncologist, after all I have mastered deliberately effecting spontaneous remission. An oncologist can't even dream of doing that.

I don't see that talking about and expressing my views and beliefs makes me lacking in humility. And as far as my own abilities are concerned, I believe I can accurately appraise what I am capable of and what I am not.

FFS. Seriously, can't something be done about this despicable bullshit?

BlackBart wrote:FFS. Seriously, can't something be done about this despicable bullshit?

Point and laugh?

Idiocy abounds. We tend to attract it.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk.

kyrani99 wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Where did the "universal observer" come from?

where from?
All I know is that it is eternal.

Stow the preaching, please.

I said "all I know is..." this is expressing a personal opinion not preaching.

Knowing is not an opinion.

"All I know is Jesus is my personal lord and savior!"

You're preaching, present evidence for your claims or knock it off.

The_Metatron wrote:

BlackBart wrote:FFS. Seriously, can't something be done about this despicable bullshit?

Point and laugh?

Idiocy abounds. We tend to attract it.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk.

Yeah, I suppose. But I do shudder at the thought of someone desperate coming across this crap on this forum and taking it seriously.

GrahamH wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Fallible wrote:Also, she hasn't explained how one (which one?) can observe without thinking. The word 'awareness' has been invoked, with the qualifier 'pure', but we haven't managed to get past how awareness is just to know and perceive, which is just to interpret or understand, which requires thought, as well as one's physical senses. As does observation.

Awareness is just to know and perceive..

I think your separation of thinking and perceiving is pure fantasy. There is surely work to be done to work out what is to be perceived, and to construct thoughts. That we are oblivious to this work merely indicates that it isn't the work of conscious awareness, but that the perceptions, experience of thought is a product of processes that are not in themselves conscious.

Various experiments reveal that what we simply seem to apprehend with no effort is the result of some sort of evaluation that we are unaware of.

IMO what you said: "experience of thought is a product of processes" is true but not as in thinking but only because of the work done by the brain in bringing about a conscious physical experience.

From my own experience ideas are packets of information that are contained in The Mind or in the personal mind. The Mind being the non-physical aspect (i.e., without space and time) of the physical /material reality and the personal mind a subset . It requires both awareness and intent to call forth the information needed to construct a logical argument. What "workings" or "processes" take place in the Mind or the personal mind? None. The Mind /mind is just a reservoir of information.

If you bother to meditate you will find that ideas emerge out of what we might call "the void" or out of "nothingness",this is the mind. And the ideas remain while ever we deliberately and consciously uphold them in mind. Once we discharge them, i.e., once we no longer give them attention, they are discharged from mind and again return to the nothingness. Ideas are named thoughts when the brain processes them into physically conscious experiences. Ideas are not of themselves conscious and have no volition of their own. They are mental object, which we may perceive through our consciousness.

The psychiatric view that they arise out of the subconscious of their own volition, is IMO, a load of unsubstantiated rubbish. Freud thought this stuff up to try and put together his theories based on what he saw in his patients.. second hand. He did not venture to examine the process for himself.

We do "apprehend with no effort" because the information is there for the asking. If you put forth a question, i.e., you use intent to request information out of The Mind or out of your personal mind (your private subset), then you will get all the possible answers appear in your mind. You then examine the results and choose one or ask a more refined question. If you ask something of the Universe, then you are asking for something that involves both The Mind and the Manifest.

For instance if you ask "what are all the movies I have ever seen?" You will find that one by one their titles will come to mind. There is no evaluating processes. There is only information that can be called for and it appears. You, who are conscious being, become conscious of the information and decide what to do with that it.

If you ask of the Universe then something material will arrive. For instance I had a mice and rat problem last year and I asked the Universe for an answer, to get rid of the mice and rats. Within two days a python appeared and later another one and stayed as house guests for about six months. They ate all the mice and rats. And then they left. No mice or rats have ventured to come to my house out of the forest since. It is a little bit of evidence of Dr Sheldrakes theory, that the mice and rats in this case, that are in the forest around my house have "learnt that my house was not a safe place for them", morphic resonance in action!

All of the processing and evaluation are conscious events. They may be reasoning, perceptions and the use of intent to ask questions or evaluate something. Ideas have no volition of their own and are not conscious entities. You become conscious of the ideas that you have called forth (for thinking/reasoning) or that have been presented to you by a related party (paranormal activity).