Empathy and quantum entanglement?

Is there a link?

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Empathy and quantum entanglement?

#81  Postby Regina » Sep 11, 2012 7:23 pm

twistor59 wrote:I learned a new word anyway: neurotheology

Me too. :thumbup:
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15690
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Empathy and quantum entanglement?

#82  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Sep 11, 2012 7:30 pm

Somebody has been listening to Deepak Chopra lately.

The quantum woo is strong with that one.
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12710
Age: 55
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Empathy and quantum entanglement?

#83  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Sep 11, 2012 7:45 pm

There are plenty of visual and auditory cues for empathy to work off of. Besides that, when you experience empathy for a film character, what are the particles in your brain entangled with? The cellulose in the film?
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12710
Age: 55
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Empathy and quantum entanglement?

#84  Postby THWOTH » Sep 11, 2012 9:36 pm

ackmanben wrote:
THWOTH wrote:
campermon wrote:Has this turned into a beer drinking thread yet?

:ask:

I am sympathetic to your question. By sympathetic, I of course refer to that assumption embodied in the directive of the famed Golden Rule; and by assumption, I of course refer to that unspoken minor premise of social intercourse, namely; that others are essentially and fundamentally like ourselves. The Golden Rule, therefore, reflects a reasonably premised conceit that our essential similarity means we would all, and indeed do, want to be treated similarly in similar circumstances. However, as we know from our previous discussions with the dreaded panpsychists, not to mention those others who earnestly cling to similar vaporous incongruities, that such an assumed essential similarity implies a singular and absolute reality, and that such thinking may, if given full reign, eventually lead us either towards the horror of solipsism or the ignominy of ethnocentricism. By this we might see that the small portion of wisdom encapsulated in The Golden Rule, though affording us a little confidence in our wanton navigations through the maelstrøm social exchange, can act to limit both our thinking and action with regards to others. If we are to forego the mere acceptance of bland assumption--that we are all essentially similar--and acknowledge a far more practical one--that we are all essentially different--then we may overcome the limitations of sympathy and develop a new strategy of communication. This we may, and indeed do, call empathy, and it consists not in the mere mutually dispensed sentimentalism of sympathy but in deliberately imagining an experience of the world from another's point of view. Only by this can we truly achieve an insight into the situation and concerns of others to facilitate communications which positively encourage inter-personal sensitivity to the needs of others. By this token I return to the issue at hand and hope you will recognise both the sincerity and seriousness with which I have attended to your question such that you may take a little strength from my general eagerness to deal with these important matters head on, with honesty and appropriate haste.

In other words; Yes, I think this may have turned into a beer drinking thread, as evidenced by the posts above.

:beer:


Thank you, I appreciate your humility, unlike the incessant arrogance I normally see on this forum.

Though it is fair to say that my previous post was typed with my tongue in my cheek, if not my head up my arse, I did draw a cogent distinction between sympathy and empathy by offering definitions of each.

With regards to the topic, empathy arises in deliberately imagining an experience of the world from another's point of view. It is in employing our natural, innate, evolved capacities for imagination and forward planning that we gain real insight into the circumstances and experience of others empathetically.

My question to you is: What the blummin' b'jaysus does this have to do with a particular type of relationship between pairs or groups of quantum particles? We may as well be discussion 'Irascibility and Brownian Motion' as far as I can see.

:coffee:
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 37131
Age: 57

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Empathy and quantum entanglement?

#85  Postby smudge » Sep 12, 2012 6:12 am

THWOTH wrote: We may as well be discussion 'Irascibility and Brownian Motion' as far as I can see.

:coffee:


Hmm....
Now you mention it, perhaps that would be worthy of it's own thread? :think:

:coffee:
User avatar
smudge
 
Posts: 2718
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Empathy and quantum entanglement?

#86  Postby epepke » Sep 12, 2012 6:30 am

Yes, quantum entanglement has a great deal to do with empathy. It is also an important part of farting and nose-picking.
User avatar
epepke
 
Posts: 4080

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Empathy and quantum entanglement?

#87  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2012 3:09 pm

ackmanben wrote:Are there electrons around an atom inside a neuron that fires action potentials (electrical impulses)? Does empathy only work with te act of observation?



Easy to test one's subjective response:

If I were to imagine that a dearly loved person was kidnapped and their evil kidnapper called me and told me he was going to torture that person, would I feel empathy?

I have no means of observing it.

If I heard screams, do you think I would feel entirely dispassionate?


Clearly, observing is unnecessary.

More importantly: are electrons conveying such complex information as is required by this scenario? How would electrons do so? Perhaps you could try supplying mechanisms for your apparently non-related interactions - how precisely does this idea operate?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 31174
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Empathy and quantum entanglement?

#88  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2012 3:21 pm

ackmanben wrote:Fair enough. What about the electromagnetic field? Could it somehow be of influence, like with telepathy? I remember watching Through the wormhole and doing some reading on a scientist using electromagnetic helmets to study telepathy between two individuals in a controlled setting. It was very interesting, has anybody heard of it?


Aren't electromagnetic fields caused by the motions of electrically charged objects? How does telepathy fit with that? There's no movement of the head (i.e. the electrically charged object) but rather telepathy is supposedly the transmission of the process that charge is fueling.

Further, don't you have to consider field strength? Just how much electrical activity is going on here? If the field's that far away, why aren't we all telepathic to everyone, metres or miles around us? Why do people get mugged, murdered, raped, or hit by cars etc if they are all receiving information electromagnetically? Shouldn't they all be able to sense these things far before they happen?

I am not sure whether I've seen the study you mentioned there as you haven't produced a link to it or given any names etc. However, let's just accept for the sake of argument that, under the conditions you've said were the case, that some degree of telepathy was actually achieved (who knows if this is the case - you haven't said!). What you've said happened there is that some other device was used to capture/send that information emanating from the brain, which doesn't appear to be what the guy's supposedly trying to prove: that it happens brain to brain. Regardless of that, even if it works as stated, the fact that the helmets were attached to each other again makes for a poor experiment - even if brain signals are capture-able electromagnetically by some kind of resonance imaging technique, it doesn't show that our brains actually emanate these signals sufficiently far to transmit them to another person's mind: actually, it shows that you need quite a sophisticated suite of sensors that humans don't actually possess.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 31174
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Empathy and quantum entanglement?

#89  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 15, 2013 7:29 pm

It's OTT to claim that measuring the electrical field around someone allows mind-reading. Even monitoring the activity of an array of specific neurons in the brain makes it very hard to understand what they are thinking, and field sensing falls far short of neuron monitoring.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 68
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Empathy and quantum entanglement?

#90  Postby tolman » Jan 16, 2013 12:35 pm

THWOTH wrote:With regards to the topic, empathy arises in deliberately imagining an experience of the world from another's point of view. It is in employing our natural, innate, evolved capacities for imagination and forward planning that we gain real insight into the circumstances and experience of others empathetically.

Surely, in reality, 'empathy' involves trying to imagine something from someone else's point of view, frequently with very little detailed feedback on how well that has actually been done.
As long as the would-be-empathiser gets roughly the right result on a happy-sad spectrum, something which they typically have fairly obvious clues about, and maybe makes the odd noise suggesting they have done some attempted empathising, they will tend to be judged to have done it correctly by others* (and possibly also tend to be judged to have done it more correctly by themselves).

(*as long as their empathy isn't unwelcome, something which often depends on the nature of prior relationships)
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests