Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Something is causing the wave function to collapse into a particle. This something is consciousness from my perspective. How do I come to this? Well first there is the weirdness of quantum experiments themselves. But I do not rely on this. I just observe. I observe my consciousness create things all day. Consciousness is the creator. One only has to observe.

Now, all of these quantum waves collapsing into things didn't happen over night. It took millions upon millions of years. Consciousness is always busy. It is busy right now creating things all over the place. New things. New thoughts. It is the beginning. One only has to observe.

Alternatively, one can hold on as tight as they wish to spontaneous emergence of everything - including consciousness. Everything becomes spontaneous magic - or God, take your pick.

As for biology. Biologists have their self-imposed rules. These rules do not allow them to suggest anything may exist other than material things. So they have boxed themselves out of the fun.

Physics on the other hand was forced into looking at these deeper issues by the mathematical equations which implied some extraordinary things such as non-local interaction (entanglement), Delayed-choice, as well as wave/particle duality as well as the wave function collapse.

First there was the singularity (for example), and then there was the Big Bang (possibly). And then, everything began to organize into things - galaxies, solar systems, worlds, species, etc. There is a force that is doing this. I am merely replacing the word force with the word consciousness.

... but how does the existence today of a creative consciousness imply that consciousness is and always has been any more than the existence today of the earth implies that the earth is and always has been? ...

... I think magic and God are both appeals to causes that are not of this world ... emergence, on the other hand, is entirely of this world ...

... I think you may have this backwards - in studying the quantum, physicists don't ponder anything other than the material ...

biologists, on the other hand, study the much hairier and wilder (literally!) dynamical aspects of the world ... and I think that your affinity to physics may explain why your metaphysics is more materialistic than mine ...

for you, everything is material -

matter is either living or non-living,

and to make this work you appeal to a universal consciousness to provide the spark that turns non-living matter into living matter ... to me, matter is dead, period

- it is rather the relational and contingent dynamics of matter driven within the disequilibria of an expanding universe that gives rise to amazing novelty such as galaxies and solar systems and life and mind ...

... have you read Eric Chaisson's "Cosmic Evolution"? ... according to his mathematical inquiry, it is the very expansion of the universe itself that would equate to what you are calling a "force" or "conscousness" ...

Biology has some great ideas with Rupert Sheldrake but their only response is .... (fill in the blank).

Yes, if we care at all what the concept of self-organizing implies.

Same reason. Elementary physics.

One cannot simply replace one word "magic" with a phrase "elementary physics" and declare an answer.

they want me to play pretend with them.

At this time in human evolution there is no way of know what existed at the beginning.

What emerges is material. However, emergence itself is like pulling a rabbit out of a hat with no one pulling. The word, for me, is nothing more than a placeholder for magic. Emergence? It just happens! Poof!

Some do and some don't. The equations raise many questions, and physicists like Bohm, Bell, Wigner pondered them. I am sure there are physicists all around the world who are pondering the weirdness of the equations and what they imply - and what is shown in the labs. The equations force physicists (those who are interested in what it all means), to look for answers.

I have to wonder how you inferred this. I am exactly opposite. Everything is both immaterial and material at the same time. Sort of like quanta.

Fortunately people who are literate in science don't get confused between the two.

---------- Post added 09-25-2009 at 12:17 PM ----------

You can't read Virgil untranslated if you don't know Latin. And you can't "play pretend" with us if you don't know science.

... I think cosmologists like Eric Chaisson might take issue with that ...

... so then, cosmologists like Eric Chaisson are magicians? ... Nobel-prize-winning physicists like Robert Laughlin are magicians? ... biologists like Stuart Kauffman are magicians? ... roboticists like Rodney Brooks are magicians? ... yet some of the more fanciful mathematical flights of the quantum are real? ... you are more of a reductive materialist than I thought ... you're willing to reduce reality to quantum materiality (which simply describes the properties of matter) and claim that any physical description above that is no more than illusion ...

... why do you presume that this is unique to particle physicists? ... are scientists who study the implications of the equations of chaos theory just morons who are blind to the fact that they're practicing magic? ..

... but isn't quantum mechanics simply a description of matter? ... the discovery that matter isn't quite what we intuited it to be is one of the great achievements of quantum mechanics ... but that doesn't all of a sudden make it not matter - it is still matter by definition ...

Sorry. You will have to find other biologist to play " Let's pretend we know" with you. All you have is are words or phrases to replace the word "creator" that you personally find acceptable since they do not imply spiritual but of course they are - i.e. "emergence", or "self'-organizing". And you are happy to play that game. And why not?

Self-organization and emergence do not imply creator. How did you get this impression?

I'm sorry. They imply magic. My bad. It just happens! POOF!

No, they just choose to ignore stuff that may not fit into their beliefs.

No. Quantum physics does not describe matter. It predicts the location and momentum of wave/particles whatever they might be.

... I'm sorry, but that's where you're dead wrong ... the fundamental belief shared by scientists is that the scientific method is a valid way of understanding the world and ourselves as a community ... all other scientific beliefs are derivative from that method (observe, hypothesize, experiment, repeat) ... as such, scientists impose upon themselves the restriction that they are not free to ignore the results of the scientific method, even if these results don't happen to jibe with their current metaphysics ... there is no cherry picking of scientific results in science ... by the way, since I know how much you dislike being called a quack, thank you for calling me one (since a quack is precisely someone who cherry picks scientific results to fit their beliefs) ...

... I'm sorry, but that's where you're dead wrong ... the fundamental belief shared by scientists is that the scientific method is a valid way of understanding the world and ourselves as a community ...

all other scientific knowledge is derivative from that method (observe, hypothesize, experiment, repeat) ... as such, scientists impose upon themselves the restriction that they are not free to ignore the results of the scientific method, even if these results don't happen to jibe with their current metaphysics ...

there is no cherry picking of scientific results in science ... by the way, since I know how much you dislike being called a quack, thank you for calling me one (since a quack is precisely someone who cherry picks scientific results to fit their beliefs) ...

... "wave/particles whatever they might be" is the current description of matter ...

Yup. But unfortunately, reasonable arguments don't penetrate the closed mind.

One cannot simply replace one word "magic" with a phrase "elementary physics" and declare an answer. Elementary physics (quantum physics) has nothing to say about the organizing principle.

It is open to interpretation - and there are many including Bohr's ( Copenhagen), Wigner (Consciousness), Bohm (Implicate Order of enfolding events and consciousness)

For some reason biologists are having a really rough time admitting that they do not know, and they want me to play pretend with them.

Rich

fatty acids self-organizing in water,

The first thing you learn in biology is like dissolves like. Water is a polar molecule and FAs are non-polar so any lipid like oil or butter will not dissolve in water. This is why whenever you put oil in water it doesnt dissolve into it but rather floats around in the water (i.e. hydrophobic). The FAs will have to come together in a 'vesicle like' manner because they cant bind with its surrounding evironment. Its not that mysterious -you just dont understand.

The issue arises when a scientist does not recognize what new assumptions and beliefs that they are entertaining and may also try to impose on other people. First one must recognize their own belief system and then one must recognize when one is attempting to impose that belief system, not matter how much they believe that their belief system is better than any one out there. Religious zealots do this all the time. Do scientists try to impost their belief system? Ask yourself this?

There most certainly is. Particularly when there is lots of money involved.

There is no way to describe it accurately with words or images so we do the best we can. But the quantum equations do not describe it. They merely predict the probability of location/momentum. Bohm, for example, uses the words Implicate Order and eliminates the notion of wave/particle.

I have found the scientific method inadequate and constraining for the issues I have to confront in life.

Now we must inspect who is the zealot who is attempting to impose beliefs on someone else.