Posted: Feb 05, 2013 12:10 am
campermon wrote:jamest wrote:Maybe a retitle is in order: Will this thread as a whole revolve?
Now this is in the science thread, an interesting paper here; http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009.pdf which argues that brain states are best modeled classically.
This is constructive and one way to begin discussion on this topic. Unlike the Woo cops who's perspective is tainted and all they offer is BS.
It is not my intent to derail this topic and in fact I haven't been the posters who have.
If you want to understand something you need to make the time to understand it. We have no start point on a topic such as this with regard to a common understanding. I offer brain wave frequency - and the observer as a starting point
I gave information for those so inclined to do the research because, based on what I've seen on this site so far there is a serious lack of curiosity in gaining a greater understanding. They cry woo without even knowing what I'm talking about. Yet for me to offer this requires a level of understanding that obviously many on this site do not possess. Therefore I would hope they might actually research the topic instead of pulling something out of their collective asses.
Waves: Brain Wave Frequency is generally discussed in the venacular of waves.
Greek: These waves are commonly named in Greek terms, Alpha, Beta, Delta, Theta
Military: The US military has, for some years now, been researching and experimenting with the use of brain wave frequencies in technology and communication, communication that requires sending and receiving. All this information is available on the internet.....look it up.
So many here on this site assume a common understanding on a wide variety of topics, and the instant that something comes up that they haven't heard about they cry woo. Therefore in order to go through the tedious task of bringing some up to speed I suggested doing the research yourself.
I ask what is curious about the effect of the observer? Well it really isn't understood that well, but it is an effect that is known to exist - The observer has an impact. That being the case, and considering the topic: Quantum probability and human choice and behavior, well this topic smacks of quantum consciousness.
Yet what is known about that topic is far less than what there is to learn. (Not for some of you that is, who seem to know everything)
Consciousness has been discussed for thousands of years, more recently we've aquired better tools (science) to look into what consciousness might be perhaps beyond the theoretical approach of the past. That technology is based in frequency - energy waves, therefore the reference to brain waves.
Some of you have taken offense to the infinite potential of a particle. You haven't spent much time on this I take it? What is all matter made up of......Energy What is different between a particle and a wave? How is a particle collapsed into a wave?
We learn more by asking more. Could the effect of the observer be that which collapses a particle? Is consciousness the observer?
Human behavior is grounded in the fields of neuro-science, endocrinology, and genetics all of which can be understood from a classical understanding of mathematics. Whether there exists a means to mathematically map that out is yet to be achieved, yet theoretically I believe that may be a possibility.
Consciousness is suggested to be explored in an understanding of the quantum world, but until consciousness is measured...and subsequently accepted as a tangible thing...it will remain an excercise in frustration.
Choice also, is harder to put our fingers on. We can make assumptions that choice is derived from the cognitive functions of the brain and the behavioral expression of our genetics, but in this we risk falling into a conversation on Free Will, and if the Threads on Free Will on this site are any indication of where that conversation would end, I'd rather not wallow in that convoluted mess. Zombies and what not....rediculous.