What is the material basis of Consciousness ?
socratus
I think : the Vacuum and Electron are the
material basis of Consciousness.
Why?
Because now nobody knows what the Vacuum and Electron are.
1.
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t
correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct
description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac ./
2.
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein./
#
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ Somebody./
== .
And I think, when we understand the Vacuum and Electron
we will know the Ultimate Nature of Reality, it means we
will know the material basis of Consciousness too.
== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
socratus
We have one brain which works dualistically
according to the Quantum theory of Dualism of particle.
== .
"... indeed an understanding of psi phenomena and of
consciousness must provide the basis of an improved
understanding of quantum mechanics."
/ Evan Walker /
socratus
to you in our terrestrial world only by Electromagnetic waves.
Lorentz proved: there aren’t Electromagnetic waves without Electron.
Therefore I say,
only Electron can be the Quantum of Information/ Consciousness.
We don’t have any other theory of Information’s transfers.
========== .
SOCRATUS
einseele
"thing", like electron/wave or any other substrate.
For instance, Time. is it time like...what. Do any body believe time
is of substance. Time can even be questioned as really being.
At any rate time (and this is just an example) is a tough concept. Now
believe that time is of information, just look around if not.
But this is not about exceptions, this does not mean that Time,
whatever means, is an exception when looking at information.
There are not a single example, none, of material information, of
information being a substance, a thing, It is even difficult to say
it.
What you call here Consciousness, it is of course information, but
what else. And if your theory is that Consciousness is a particle,
then is not information sir, it is a particle. (which I doubt BTW)
archytas
Perhaps everything is a series of addresses, seen from a particular
address. It just doesn't seem to help me get through the day.
Serenity Smiles
like, I think therefore I know time? A relative state too? By this I mean,
more of a brain-tool, of organic origins as, of course, a truly existent
conceptualised constant in nature, so far as one's own abilities determines
the parameters, etc, e.g diseases such as Alzheimers and other dementia,
distort values. The values, however are not time, but just results. There
are many ways of detecting time through various ways, other than timepieces,
clocks etc. eg music, photos, trigger events to lead to a result of time, a
shortcut of the evaluation processes.
So, how to look "outside of the box" on time?? Genetics? Gravity? Emotions
or Emotional states? Origins of the shadows of death mwuhahahaha, how was
life and death perceived in the earliest of civilisations, where did the
notions of sacrifice arise, in the first place???
--------------------------------------------------
From: "archytas" <arch...@live.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:52 PM
To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [epistemology 11052] Re: What is the material basis of
Consciousness ?
> Information exchange has been construed as particle exchange Carlos.
> Perhaps everything is a series of addresses, seen from a particular
> address. It just doesn't seem to help me get through the day.
>
> On 5 Dec, 20:17, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I dont understand why many people want the information to be a sort of
>> "thing", like electron/wave or any other substrate.
>>
>> For instance, Time. is it time like...what. Do any body believe time
>> is of substance. Time can even be questioned as really being.
>>
>> At any rate time (and this is just an example) is a tough concept. Now
>> believe that time is of information, just look around if not.
>>
>> But this is not about exceptions, this does not mean that Time,
>> whatever means, is an exception when looking at information.
>>
>> There are not a single example, none, of material information, of
>> information being a substance, a thing, It is even difficult to say
>> it.
>>
>> What you call here Consciousness, it is of course information, but
>> what else. And if your theory is that Consciousness is a particle,
>> then is not information sir, it is a particle. (which I doubt BTW)
>>
>> On 5 dez, 03:42, socratus <isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > The Information ( some basis of Consciousness) can be transfer
>> > to you in our terrestrial world only by Electromagnetic waves.
>> > only Electron can be the Quantum of Information/ Consciousness.
>> > ========== .
>> > SOCRATUS
>
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Epistemology" group.
> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>
>
>
Georges Metanomski
"material", whatever it may mean.
Georges
einseele
Seems that people thinks that "material" is that what they "think",
whatever means "material", "think", etc
Carlos
einseele
Now you added a little word "exchange", socratus talks about
"information" and you added "information exchange"
Indeed particles are exchanged, do you think information consists in
the particles?
Without a reading instance there is no information. When you say
information exchange you are correct, but you moved the focus to the
exchange part of the statement
One can say there is no information without the "particles", and that
is true as well
Information is made of three:
1 - particle
2 - code (the instance which "understands" where the particles point)
3 - distance
archytas
are always talking about 'some shit that was before' - I'd leave it in
these graceless terms. I'm sort of with you at base Carlos, but I can
do little with a change in particle spin as changing information in
the sorry world I would put right (or perhaps retire from in
disgust)! I would say some particles carry information, as in when we
blow them up into other particles at CERN or Fermilab - though there
is clearly more to this. Books do require readers, yet one can
envisage a time in which 'reading' has gone but the books remain and
their meanings logically and painstakingly reconstructed (perhaps as
one can imagine Georges quipping, 'only to find there was nothing
worthwhile in them')! Alternate notions of information were around in
biology when I still did any. This was usually to split into a
material world and a world of information. I have no sense of contact
with the latter without the former. I used to like notions of
consciousness as emergent properties of life, but we could be tuning
into to something pre-existent of life, the development requiring
both. Your account is reductionist, though none the worse for that.
I can see where it goes in terms of what we might call 'unstable
computing', but can't grok with it on a wider basis.
I'm sure we'd both be aware of the category leap once I start saying
I'm sure most people don't really know what information they give out
when they are saying anything, its reception is likely to be equally
vacuous or mundane and that misinformation is everywhere. I doubt
there is a 'Georges' Razor' to apply (though something like one
applies in science in terms of getting a better grok on what we are
dealing with). My guess is to go with defeasible reasoning, another
computer connected term.
Reasoning is defeasible when the corresponding argument is rationally
compelling but not deductively valid. The truth of the premises of a
good defeasible argument provide support for the conclusion, even
though it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion
false. In other words, the relationship of support between premises
and conclusion is a tentative one, potentially defeated by additional
information.
Much has been wittered already on the nature of consciousness. I find
myself interested in what reductionist science is telling us because
there is little to believe in religion and tradition. This still
leaves me interested in my consciousness of this vast universe,
plethora of them 'whizzing' above my head but unseen and potentially
contactable by gravity measurements and so on. Not only might there
be a world of information that is immaterial, there could be material
worlds not material to us. In a more day-to-day sense, we might make
more of what we refer to as consciousness, if we could develop
understandings about decision-making supposedly occurring very quickly
before apparent rational intervention, facts that might let us bring
new argument to rationality and how we are conscious.
einseele
enjoy.
You and Georges have something in common (believe it or not). You both
like to write. :-)
Writing is may be the mother of all arts (although she wanted to be
like music).
Poor Science she does not admit she also wants to be literature.
Instead she decided to tell us: Look, I'm not kidding, this is
serious... Science is the serious sister of Fiction, sentenced to look
for the truth, or something like that. Fiction instead, does not need
her sister's frustrations
And talking about mothers we also have Nature, does she write as
well?
I believe so. DNA is since human beings so declared, a text.
Who/what writes and who/what reads.
I like to be reductionist here, I believe that everything is writen
and read by the same, this email, all books, DNA, CERN conCERNS, etc
Allow me to quote you here "...I would say some particles carry
information..."
Upside down I would say information plays with particles
There is no God here, there is a vacuum instead. The answer to the
question "who reads DNA?" is better answered by Fiction. Science is
too serious to my understanding
archytas
more information in this sentence than we can find through particulate
study, though we could find what I mean and even what might be taken
as meaning. The news today carries footage of an octopus making body
armour out of coconut shells discarded by humans. What consciousness
might be involved here?
All manner of particles are postulated and we do not have a definitive
list. There may even be a 'reading particle'!
archytas
trapped in a bose-einstein condensate and stopped, 'becoming matter'.
A matter wave can then be transferred from one BEC 'box' to another,
where it becomes light again. This is knitting with very thin
needles.
socratus
What is the material basis of Quantum Consciousness ?
Will Physics explain Consciousness?
===.
Our brain works on dualistic basis:
usually consciousness (logically) and rarely unconsciousness
( at first it seems illogically but at last it shows as very wise
act)
In his last autobiographic article, Einstein wrote:
" . . . the discovery is not the matter of logical thought,
even if the final product is connected with the logical form".
In book ‘ The Holographic Universe’ Michael Talbot
on page 160 explained this situation in such way:
‘ Contrary to what everyone knows it is so, it may not be
the brain that produce consciousness, but rather consciousness
that creates the appearance of the brain ’
#
In our terrestrial world the Information ( some basis of
Consciousness)
can be transfer to you only by Electromagnetic waves.
Lorentz proved: there aren’t Electromagnetic waves without Electron.
Therefore I say,
only Electron can be the Quantum of Information/ Consciousness.
We don’t have any other theory of Information’s transfers.
#
We know the Electron is very important particle in our live.
It acts in Maxwell’s electrodynamics.
It acts in the atom.
But how Electron acts in cell and in Outer space we don’t know.
We need time to understand this fact.
And when we understand the Vacuum and Electron
we will know the Ultimate Nature of Reality, it means we
will know the material basis of Quantum Consciousness too.
==========.
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e= +ah*c and e= -ah*c.
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
Question.
Why does electron heed five ( 5 ) formulas?
====.
#
Now nobody knows what the Vacuum and Electron are.
1
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t
correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct
description
of something more complex? "
/ Paul Dirac /
2
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein /
3
Tell me what an electron is and I'll then tell you everything.
/ Somebody /
=====================.
More details.
"... indeed an understanding of psi phenomena and of
consciousness must provide the basis of an improved
understanding of quantum mechanics."
/Evan Walker /
In my opinion it means that to answer to the question
‘ where the consciousness come from?’
we must understand not only the brain but electron too.
Once again.
Human brain works on two levels:
consciousness and subconsciousness. The neurons of brain
create these two levels. So, that it means consciousness and
subconsciousness from physical point of view ( interaction
between billions and billions neurons ). It can only mean
that the state of neurons in these two situations is different.
How can we understand these different states of neurons?
How does the brain generate consciousness?
We can understand this situation only on the quantum level,
only using Quantum theory. But there isn’t QT without
Quantum of Light and Electron. So, what is interaction between
Quantum of Light, Electron and brain ?
Therefore I say: we must understand not only the brain but electron
too.
=================.
According to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such cells.
And therefore the human brain has only one Electron.
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
As the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ says:
Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form.
They do not know My transcendental nature and
My supreme dominion over all that be.
/ Chapter 9. Text 11./
================== .
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
================== .
socratus
What did the authors
/ Markus Arndt, Thomas Juffmann, Vlatko Vedral /
talk about in their article ?
http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/Arndt2009a%20HFSPJ%20Quantum%20Bio%20Printed.pdf
They have interest only in one idea.
Through all their work they try to understand the
connection between information, brain and quantum
theory in living and not living systems.
Their conclusion is.
The interest of combination between Quantum physics
and Biology is growing but many experimental
demonstrations and theoretical explanation unclear.
To understand this problem is timely and important for us.
========.
My layman’s conclusion.
1.
In the internet we can read hundreds theories of electron.
All of them are problematical.
Nobody knows what electron is.
2.
In the internet we can read hundreds articles about
connection between quantum theory, brain and information.
All of them are problematical.
3.
There is tendency for searching this truth.
4.
How I understand this problem.
Our brain works on dualistic basis:
usually consciousness (logically) and rarely unconsciousness.
It means the interaction between billions and billions neurons
can be in two stats.
In the stat of consciousness (C ) or in the stat of unconsciousness
( U).
And we have information ( I ) which gives birth to thought and act
in the each of these two situations.
The question is:
How can the information or quantum of information transfer ( or be
transfer)
from the stat C to the state U and vice versa ?
Doesn’t this question is similar to the puzzle of quantum tunneling ?
But quantum tunneling is tunneling of one particle- electron.
So.
How can electron transfer from the stats C to the state U and vice
versa ?
What is electron ?
If somebody try to understand the connection between information,
brain and quantum theory without electron, he is mistaken.
=====================.
Socratus.
Georges Metanomski
What is the conscious basis of matter? - asks and answers physics.
Thanks for another good laugh.
Georges.
socratus
Electron itself is a quantum of information
/ north Philosopher /
meaning ? explain further
========================.
1.
Electron’s behavior is strange:
a) Dualism of wave and particle.
b) Interaction with vacuum.
c) Interaction with photon.
The strange electron’s behavior shows that
electron is special particle.
2.
Electron possess five (5) formulas for its existence
It shows that electron is special particle.
3.
To transfer information we need Em waves, it means electron.
And only Electron !
It shows that electron is special particle.
4.
The simple atom consist of proton and electron.
The complicated atom consist of many protons
and only one single electron ( according to Pauli's
Exclusion Principle )
Therefore electron is special particle.
#
And perhaps therefore poet Valery Brusov has written:
But maybe these electrons are World,
where there are five continents:
the art,
knowledge,
wars,
thrones
and the memory of forty centuries.
/ The world of electron. /
=========.
chazwin
~You old idealist , you!
That merely begs the question what do you mean by consciousness
>
> Georges
chazwin
Material is that stuff that hits you in the face when you fall
downstairs!!
It's the blood that you feel coming out of your nose.
On Dec 12 2009, 8:24 am, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ornamentalmind
> > Georges- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
socratus
The process of conscious and unconscious.
My layman’s opinion.
===============================
There is a possibility of the brain activity to have
the ability to switch between conscious and unconscious.
But this process is suppressed by contact with the
cerebral cortex neurons (! ) which work in Maxwell’s regime. ( !)
( Electroencephalography shows us the Maxwell’s electrical
activity of the brain)
#
To create 'awareness' having senses and thoughts is impossible.
The senses and thoughts increase the cerebral cortex neurons
impulses ( Maxwell’s EM energy ) and doesn’t give the ability
( of something ) to switch between conscious and unconscious.
#
Maxwell’s electrical activity of the brain shows the
‘normal – not normal logical ‘ process in the brain.
To create 'awareness/ unconscious ' needs another
process – Quantum (!). 'Awareness' is Quantum process.
Very often it is only Quantum moment (!) but at this moment,
at this second the structure of cerebral cortex neurons is changes
and it means that the thought and behaviour of person changes too.
And then again the Maxwell’s electrical activity of the brain takes
place.
#
" . . . the discovery is not the matter of logical thought,
even if the final product is connected with the logical form".
/ Einstein /
===========================.
P.S.
Is an 'awareness/ unconscious ' equal to a ‘discovery / enlightenment
‘?
============.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
============================================.
chazwin
On Jan 6, 10:12 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...now if 'that stuff' could only really hit you....
And that is exactly what it does. It really hits and really hurts -
try it sometime.
ornamentalmind
try it sometime.” – chaz
While there is the appearance and perception of contact, no actual
contact is made as we know thanks to science. When ‘matter’ is
deconstructed (analyzed), at one level molecules are found…further
‘down’, atoms. For now, not continuing down the rabbit hole further,
for those who haven’t thought about it, one might ask whether an
electron from one atom actually ‘touches’ another electron from
another atom. Of course, one has to know what an electron actually is
first. Regardless, while ‘we’, as human beings do posses the sense of
touch which is ultimately a construct of the psyche (mind), as far as
I know, no ‘thing’ (matter) in fact touches something else.
Electromagnetic fields may come into play, but no thing touches
anything else except perhaps within one’s thoughts.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Georges Metanomski
"What is the conscious basis of matter?" - physical reality.
Georges.
chazwin
On Jan 9, 5:37 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> “And that is exactly what it does. It really hits and really hurts -
> try it sometime.” – chaz
>
> While there is the appearance and perception of contact, no actual
> contact is made as we know thanks to science.
I disagree. What is commonly known pragmatically as "contact" has been
modelled by
science so that it does not look like contact. But it is "CONTACT"
that science is actually describing.
This sort of contact I was speaking of is the sort that breaks bone
and makes you bleed.
When ‘matter’ is
> deconstructed (analyzed), at one level molecules are found…further
> ‘down’, atoms. For now, not continuing down the rabbit hole further,
> for those who haven’t thought about it, one might ask whether an
> electron from one atom actually ‘touches’ another electron from
> another atom. Of course, one has to know what an electron actually is
> first. Regardless, while ‘we’, as human beings do posses the sense of
> touch which is ultimately a construct of the psyche (mind), as far as
> I know, no ‘thing’ (matter) in fact touches something else.
What we call touch is that which you describe.
chazwin
On Jan 9, 12:21 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "What is the material basis of Consciousness?" - kitchen almanac.
>
> "What is the conscious basis of matter?" - physical reality.
Cogito ergo???
>
> Georges.
Georges Metanomski
>
>
> On Jan 9, 12:21 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
"What is the material basis of Consciousness?" - kitchen almanac.
"What is the conscious basis of matter?" - physical reality.
===============
Chaz:
> Cogito ergo???
===============
No, Einstein's "Physics and Reality".
Georges.
=============