• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 10

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Congratulations on changing your initial point of view re AI.

Re "focusing on you [being] a total diversion from the subject matter" introduced by @William Strathmann five days ago, it is indeed you who has produced the many distractions from unvexed pursuit of that subject matter. No one wants to focus on you and your distractions. I hope we can put an end to them, and I attempted to help that along with my last post. Please disappear and stop calling attention to yourself here until you have something relevant to say.
If you cannot see the relevance then perhaps somebody else might. Or maybe someone else will find something I've contributed interesting. In the meantime, neither this forum nor this thread are yours to arbitrate who can and cannot participate. If you don't want to see my posts the answer is simple. Put me on ignore. Or if you want a private discussion where you can restrict participation to only those you approve of, then you can create one and exclude me from it. Trust me. I won't be offended. I'll even assist you. Here's the link: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/conversations/add
 
Last edited:
The fact is, Randall, that I've had you on ignore for many months now. I only become aware that you've posted on occasions when others' posts are clearly responding to a post invisible to me, and then, depending on my interest in the immediate subject of the exchange, I click to read your 'ignored content'.

Note that I asked that you "please disappear" until you've read up on issues and topics we've discussed at length in the past, and (hopefully) until you're ready to deal with others here in a collegial manner rather than pestering and badgering those who won't enter into rhetorical games with you.
 
The fact is, Randall, that I've had you on ignore for many months now. I only become aware that you've posted on occasions when others' posts are clearly responding to a post invisible to me, and then, depending on my interest in the immediate subject of the exchange, I click to read your 'ignored content'.

Note that I asked that you "please disappear" until you've read up on issues and topics we've discussed at length in the past, and (hopefully) until you're ready to deal with others here in a collegial manner rather than pestering and badgering those who won't enter into rhetorical games with you.
That's quite something coming from someone who has engaged in unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks in an effort to bully me off the thread. If that's what you call "collegial" you ought to have another look at the definition. I'm one of the few people on the forum who has actually read-up, kept informed about the content on this thread, and consistently provided quality objective responses that cite specific issues. So I kindly ask you to back-off on the personal jibes and if you decide to respond, to provide feedback relevant to those issues.
 
Last edited:
That's quite something coming from someone who has engaged in unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks in an effort to bully me off the thread. If that's what you call "collegial" you ought to have another look at the definition. I'm one of the few people on the forum who has actually read-up, kept informed about the content on this thread, and consistently provided quality objective responses that cite specific issues. So I kindly ask you to back-off on the personal jibes and if you decide to respond, to provide feedback relevant to those issues.

giphy (1).gif
 
3quarksdaily: The continuing relevance of Immanuel Kant

4. Kant claims that nothing in our experience is just "given" to us in a pure form unadulterated by the way we think. Our cognitive apparatus is always both receptive and active. Variations on this theme have become commonplace in modern philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and linguistics. What we call "facts" or "data" are theory-laden or concept-laden. Hegel, Nietzsche, Sellars, and Kuhn are among those who have developed this insight. Some, like Hilary Putnam, take it further, arguing that so-called facts are value-laden since how we apply concepts like causality reflects our interests. As William James famously remarked, "the trail of the human serpent is over everything."

5. Kant never lost sight of the fact that while modern science is one of humanity's most impressive achievements, we are not just knowers: we are also agents who make choices and hold ourselves responsible for our actions. In addition, we have a peculiar capacity to be affected by beauty, and a strange inextinguishable sense of wonder about the world we find ourselves in. Feelings of awe, an appreciation of beauty, and an ability to make moral choices on the basis of rational deliberation do not constitute knowledge, but this doesn't mean they lack value. On the contrary. But a danger carried by the scientific understanding of the world is that its power and elegance may lead us to undervalue those things that don't count as science.

6. According to Kant, the very nature of science means that it is limited to certain kinds of understanding and explanation, and these will never satisfy us completely. For as he says in the first sentence of the Critique, human reason has this peculiarity: it is driven by its very nature to pose questions that it is incapable of answering. Now hardheaded types may dismiss out of hand as not worth asking any questions that don't admit of scientific answers. This, one imagines, is Mr. Spock's position, and possibly such an attitude will one day take over completely. But I suspect Kant is right on this matter for two reasons ...

etc etc
 
Thank you for this excellent wall of text, @william. With only 4 percent of what we take to be the 'visible' universe perceptible by us, here, in this point in spacetime, there is vast room for creative thinking about what exists in the other 96 percent, and I find your speculations both fascinating and informed in regard to current human scientific theories. The world beyond what we can see is as mysterious as consciousness, and its inherent structure(s) might well be connected to the limits of what we can understand about the nature of our experienced consciousness. That suggests to me, as it does to you, that we need to explore by all means possible the paranormal, psychic, and spiritual experiences reported by humans in the recorded past and in the present.

I'd be most interested in reading what you might be willing to describe of your own spiritual and theistic experiences, and I think that in general we ought finally in this thread to turn to lengthy discussions of the nature of these kinds of experiences. The most interesting aspect of quantum mechanics and theory for me has long been the general entanglement of q particles (and I'm guessing a similar entanglement of q fields). The deeper substrate you reason to exist in the vacuum would logically, it seems to me, interact with, further integrate, and indeed possibly guide {as in Bohm's thought} the measureable processes and structures we've discovered in the q substrate and in the classically described macro 'world' we exist in and have been able to make some sense of. Since we cannot achieve a point of view on all that exists, a view from everywhere, I think we need to proceed from the basis of phenomenological description of the range of what we experience, territory that materialist science has blocked from inquiry for more than two hundred years now. Many thanks for the doors opened in your thoughtful and carefully written post.

Constance, so sorry to have taken so long to give you a more direct response. I like visiting the forums here, and I try to keep up on the things I find interesting. But other things in life call beyond these forums, so I don't always have lots of spare time.

I think this article might be of interest on the quantum front. There is so much that is not understood. I actually left a message for the author, asking him to write a piece on the quantum foam, which I hope he'll do.

Others commented above on my suggestion of a nested hierarchy of structure in the quantum foam, so I must make it clear that I did not, and I am not suggesting a "separate reality." As an example to explain this, until Van Leeuwenhoek's functional microscope was invented, no one was aware of micro-organisms (a very large source of biomass on the planet), or that living bodies contained cells. But that does not mean that either micro-organisms or the cells of living bodies constituted a "separate reality." Rather, they were always vital constituents of "the" reality, and eventually human researchers discovered them. Until the end of the 19th century, no one knew that visible light is only a tiny part of a much, much greater electromagnetic spectrum. Likewise, no one suggests that the immensely complex internal working of each living cell is a "separate reality," but no one knew about those complex functions until the 20th century. The double helix DNA strand containing an enormous library of coded information is not a "separate reality," but it was not known until the mid-20th century. And on and on with all kinds of other discoveries.

So, my suggestion is not for a separate reality, but for yet greater knowledge of very, very, very fine structures that contribute to "the" reality, including our consciousness and our ability to perceive "the" reality.

Another criticism given above says that quantum foam is only associated with known Standard Model particles, like electrons. True, but as yet that is simply all that physicists have been able to model about the quantum foam. I've made it very clear that I am speculating that there's a whole lot more at that level that as yet no one can see, which is analogous to the huge unseen micro-biological world, which was unknown until a suitable microscope was invented. So, I'm further suggesting that certain quantum foam structures are vital to our individual human existence and consciousness, just like the double helix DNA strand in each cell has always been vital for each of us and for all our ancestors. But just as the DNA strand was unknown until the second half of the 20th century, so the even finer quantum foam structures are yet to be discovered. It's a suggestion and I may be wrong. But the history of recent scientific discovery surely leads one to at least suspect that such very fine structures might well exist.

As I've said, some experiences have led me to such speculation, including some involving my understanding of theism. In short, like many others, I'm convinced there are non-human intelligences at work in "the" reality that we experience. People claim to have had interactive communication with non-humans, going far back in history, including "religious" texts. Nothing new on that. Researchers notice similarities between reports of religious interaction and the UFO and paranormal reports of interaction. So, if we humans use the Standard Model particle zoo for our communications, perhaps very powerful non-humans can use structures in the quantum foam to communicate with each other, and with us. Plus, if each of us are also composed of fine structure quantum foam components, then perhaps non-humans can manipulate or influence those structures at that level to interact with us, to communicate with us, or to "tricksterize" us with a bunch of mesmerizing deception.

This also supports the idea that a conscious aspect of each of us might survive death of the "physical" body composed of Standard Model particles. The pre-scientific term "spirit" might be a fair place-holding description for the time being. Human consciousness is obviously highly involved with the physical brain, but maybe also to substances and structures far, far smaller that as yet we simply cannot detect at will. Not a new idea at all.

(Important questions related to a person's conscious survival after death, such as from a shamanistic view, or from an eastern Hinduistic view, or from an Abrahamic view, or from any other view, are for a different discussion.)

So here are a few examples of my experiences, most of which I'd previously posted here, that have led me to this kind of speculation. Compared to many, nothing is particularly spectacular, but they were very meaningful to me:

Luminescent ball of light on the floor that seemed to want to be seen
Articulate voice with a lethal suggestion
So-called sleep paralysis episodes
Strange vivid dreams
here

"Ting" heard many times in the dead of night, which seemed poltergeist-like (bottom of the post)
here

Initiating an impromptu exorcism (bottom of the post)
here

Healed from cigarette/nicotine addiction by an appeal to the Almighty
I'd had a similar, very powerful experience a few months earlier
(toward the end of the post)
here

I also had a single disturbing occurrence of what seemed like an OOBE up to the ceiling

Once, regarding a choice I needed to make, whether or not to undertake a major life-change involving a lengthy move from the US to another country, I appealed to the Almighty to please tell me "either by an angel or by a human" about this possible move. Within eight minutes of my request, walking back to my apartment on the city sidewalk, I unexpectedly met a woman I knew but whom I hadn't been in contact with for six months and whom I'd not expected to see again. Within a moment, before I could even speak, she excitedly told me to do exactly what I'd requested clarification about just eight minutes earlier. I should say that some six months earlier this woman and I had discussed the possibility of my move, but since then I hadn't been in contact with her and I didn't expect to again, and I certainly did not expect to see her that evening on that sidewalk, which was quite far from where she lived.

I've had other experiences that I will refrain from posting because of highly complex or sensitive backstories.

So, in my experience, non-humans, including the ultimate non-human have interacted with people, including me. I postulate that there are structures in the quantum foam that act as part of the medium of interaction.

Caveat Lector.
 
@William, thank you for this articulate and ramifying post and for the excellent Quanta article you've linked. Also for your embedded links, which I will also follow, to descriptions of experiences you've described elsewhere that have led you (as some of my experiences have led me) to think that many anomalous phenomena we experience in our locally lived 'macroworld' express deeper forms of meaningful (signifying) interconnections within a unified and integrating deep structure in being. You've pointed the way -- several ways -- to a new and rewarding development of discussion here concerning consciousness (in all its layers) and the nature of 'reality' as we experience and contemplate it.
 
Last edited:
3quarksdaily: The continuing relevance of Immanuel Kant

4. Kant claims that nothing in our experience is just "given" to us in a pure form unadulterated by the way we think. Our cognitive apparatus is always both receptive and active. Variations on this theme have become commonplace in modern philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and linguistics. What we call "facts" or "data" are theory-laden or concept-laden. Hegel, Nietzsche, Sellars, and Kuhn are among those who have developed this insight. Some, like Hilary Putnam, take it further, arguing that so-called facts are value-laden since how we apply concepts like causality reflects our interests. As William James famously remarked, "the trail of the human serpent is over everything."

5. Kant never lost sight of the fact that while modern science is one of humanity's most impressive achievements, we are not just knowers: we are also agents who make choices and hold ourselves responsible for our actions. In addition, we have a peculiar capacity to be affected by beauty, and a strange inextinguishable sense of wonder about the world we find ourselves in. Feelings of awe, an appreciation of beauty, and an ability to make moral choices on the basis of rational deliberation do not constitute knowledge, but this doesn't mean they lack value. On the contrary. But a danger carried by the scientific understanding of the world is that its power and elegance may lead us to undervalue those things that don't count as science.

6. According to Kant, the very nature of science means that it is limited to certain kinds of understanding and explanation, and these will never satisfy us completely. For as he says in the first sentence of the Critique, human reason has this peculiarity: it is driven by its very nature to pose questions that it is incapable of answering. Now hardheaded types may dismiss out of hand as not worth asking any questions that don't admit of scientific answers. This, one imagines, is Mr. Spock's position, and possibly such an attitude will one day take over completely. But I suspect Kant is right on this matter for two reasons ...

etc etc

Steve, thank you for this post foregrounding the most ramifying ideas and insights achieved by Kant, which profoundly influenced the development of modern philosophy and continue to do so exponentially in the interdisciplinary field of consciousness studies. I don't remember where I first came across the phrase "Grandfather Kant," but I think it expresses his seminal position in Western philosophy. :)
 
@William, thank you for this articulate and ramifying post and for the excellent Quanta article you've linked. Also for your embedded links, which I will also follow, to descriptions of experiences you've described elsewhere that have led you (as some of my experiences have led me) to think that many anomalous phenomena we experience in our locally lived 'macroworld' express deeper forms of meaningful (signifying) interconnections within a unified and integrating deep structure in being. You've pointed the way -- several ways -- to a new and rewarding development of discussion here concerning consciousness (in all its layers) and the nature of 'reality' as we experience and contemplate it.

Yes - thank you @William Strathmann for sharing your experiences and - I'm reading the article now ...
 
This is an excellent talk by Raymond Tallis - we looked at some of his articles recently - he talks about the fallacies of "neuromania" and "Darwinitis" - the experiments of Benjamin Libet, intentionality and and and ... @Constance, I will try to find a transcript.


Although it was a little funny when he said he had no religious agenda because he is an atheist-humanist ... ;-)
 
Last edited:
Peter Unger's Empty Ideas looks very interesting and challenging:

Here is his piece on 3 Quarks Daily

3quarksdaily: A Taste of EMPTY IDEAS

First off, I should tell readers that there, you can see what looks to be more than 40 of the book’s first 56 pages. In just a few moments, the relevance of that will be made quite striking.

PUnger feels that what you get free on Amazon should get you a fair grasp of the book.

Here is the interview with PUnger

3quarksdaily: Philosophy is a Bunch of Empty Ideas: Interview with Peter Unger

and here is the interviewer's response

3quarksdaily: On my interview with Peter Unger, and the value of Philosophy
 
Tallis makes some very valid points about 'Darwinitis'. It seems to be generally accepted as scientific fact that all of creation evolved out of some kind of primordial soup and that we evolved over billions of years and therefore consciousness must have gradually evolved with it.

The origin of life, abiogenesis, has never been explained by science and whilst there is abundant evidence for evolution within species in terms of variation or adaptation to environmental changes, there are in fact many issues with the concept of macroevolution. At a meeting last year at the Royal Society (one of the most prestigious scientific institutions, once headed by Sir Isaac Newton) the issues with the neo Darwinian synthesis were openly discussed and criticized by leading evolutionary theorists and biologists.

'The opening presentation at the Royal Society by one of those world-class biologists, Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerd Müller, opened the meeting by discussing several of the fundamental "explanatory deficits" of “the modern synthesis,” that is, textbook neo-Darwinian theory. According to Müller, the as yet unsolved problems include those of explaining:

Phenotypic complexity (the origin of eyes, ears, body plans, i.e., the anatomical and structural features of living creatures);
Phenotypic novelty, i.e., the origin of new forms throughout the history of life (for example, the mammalian radiation some 66 million years ago, in which the major orders of mammals, such as cetaceans, bats, carnivores, enter the fossil record, or even more dramatically, the Cambrian explosion, with most animal body plans appearing more or less without antecedents); and finally
Non-gradual forms or modes of transition, where you see abrupt discontinuities in the fossil record between different types.
As Müller has explained in a 2003 work (“On the Origin of Organismal Form,” with Stuart Newman), although “the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as represented by recent textbooks” it “has no theory of the generative.”
Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken



To put it succinctly, for one species to evolve into another species it requires a great deal of new information at the cellular level (D.N.A.) and the epigenetic level (new body plans) and the theory assumes that this information simply arises through random mutations to which natural selection preserves the advantageous mutations. Again it is assumed that natural selection simply knows which mutations are advantageous yet at the same time is supposedly a non-conscious, unguided process. A Darwinist will argue that the members of a species without the advantageous mutation or mutations will simply die out, but then that is not selection in any sense. To select means to make a choice from different options.

Modern science is based on the concept of methodical naturalism which is the idea that any kind of supernatural or paranormal cause cannot even be considered when evaluating evidence. The problem is that when we discover complex, specified, sequential information that produces function, such as what we find in the coding information contained in D.N.A. for example, we know from our past and repeated experience that this comes from conscious agents or minds.

All modern science is built upon a fundamentally flawed presupposition: that matter itself can generate complex information that produces function and purpose. When we find examples of design in nature that resemble human designs (D.N.A. code has much in common with computer code programmed by human minds, the nanotechnology we find at the cellular level has much in common with engine designs etc.) it is perfectly logical to presume that there must be a designer of these designs, and as these designs are infinitely more complex than anything designed by humans, it is reasonable to suppose this designer is of a much higher intelligence than humans. If the premise that complex, specified information only comes from conscious agents can be accepted, then it stands to reason that as this mysterious designer is non physical or appears to be, then the source of our own consciousness is also non physical.
 
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Quantum-Mind

In which "structural mismatch" and the combination problem are addressed:

"There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it."
(Cicero)

All minds are quantum minds. The classical-looking world-simulation you're experiencing now is what a quantum mind feels like from the inside. The same selection mechanism (Zurek’s "quantum Darwinism": https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.5082.pdf) that explains the emergence of classicality in the mind-independent world also acts on quadrillions of coherent neuronal superpositions ("cat states") in the CNS. This insanely powerful, unremitting Darwinian selection mechanism sculpts what would otherwise be fleeting psychotic noise – i.e. individual sub-femtosecond superpositions of distributed neuronal feature-processors – into a phenomenally bound world-simulation described from within by an approximation of classical physics. Only a quantum mind can phenomenally simulate a classical world. Decohered classical neurons would just be "mind-dust”, as you are in a dreamless sleep.

Investigators working on the foundations of quantum mechanics wonder why experiments ever have definite outcomes at all (cf. http://faculty.up.edu/schlosshau...). Why do we never observe smeared-out pointer-readings or live-and-dead cats? Why are superpositions never experienced, only inferred? (cf. Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia)

Unanswerable questions usually turn out to be ill-posed.

Alternatively, only superpositions are ever experienced. Your experience of determinate experimental outcomes (and live or dead cats) consists of coherent neuronal superpositions. It’s precisely the fact that the superposition principle of QM never breaks down that allows you phenomenally to simulate a well-behaved classical world where it does. The vehicle of simulation is quantum-coherent; the experiential content of the simulation is robustly classical. Perhaps think of Schrödinger’s neurons, not Schrödinger’s cat. The classical world-simulations run by our minds have been throwaway quantum computers for the last c. 540 million years.

Note this is a theoretically conservative story. Its background assumptions involve no new principle of physics, no inexplicable violation of unitarity, no observer-induced "collapse of the wavefunction", just the bare formalism of the unitary Schrödinger dynamics (cf. Schrödinger equation - Wikipedia).

Dualist philosophers of mind like David Chalmers disagree. Neither classical or quantum physics can explain phenomenal binding even if some form of panpsychism or non-materialist physicalism is true (cf. The Combination Problem for Panpsychism). The “structural mismatch” between the formalism of physics and our phenomenally bound classical world-simulations can’t be bridged.

Maybe Chalmers is right.

Yet to prove his case, it’s not enough for the dualist to demonstrate a structural mismatch between our minds and some cheesy wet lump of neural porridge occupying the four-dimensional space-time of classical physics. The dualist must demonstrate a structural mismatch between the bound phenomenology of our minds and the fundamental high-dimensional space required by the dynamics of the wavefunction (cf. https://www.physicalism.com/hilb...).
Whether such a structural match does or doesn’t exist isn’t a “philosophical” opinion.
It’s an empirical question to be settled by tomorrow’s molecular matter wave-interferometry.


What will the non-classical interference signature reveal?
(cf. an experimentally testable conjecture)

As a non-materialist physicalist, I predict – tentatively – that interferometry will yield a perfect structural match, and the Hard Problem of consciousness will be solved.

Perhaps Cicero had a point.
 
Last edited:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Quantum-Mind

In which "structural mismatch" and the combination problem are addressed:

"There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it."
(Cicero)

All minds are quantum minds. The classical-looking world-simulation you're experiencing now is what a quantum mind feels like from the inside. The same selection mechanism (Zurek’s "quantum Darwinism": https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.5082.pdf) that explains the emergence of classicality in the mind-independent world also acts on quadrillions of coherent neuronal superpositions ("cat states") in the CNS. This insanely powerful, unremitting Darwinian selection mechanism sculpts what would otherwise be fleeting psychotic noise – i.e. individual sub-femtosecond superpositions of distributed neuronal feature-processors – into a phenomenally bound world-simulation described from within by an approximation of classical physics. Only a quantum mind can phenomenally simulate a classical world. Decohered classical neurons would just be "mind-dust”, as you are in a dreamless sleep.

Investigators working on the foundations of quantum mechanics wonder why experiments ever have definite outcomes at all (cf. http://faculty.up.edu/schlosshau...). Why do we never observe smeared-out pointer-readings or live-and-dead cats? Why are superpositions never experienced, only inferred? (cf. Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia)

Unanswerable questions usually turn out to be ill-posed.

Alternatively, only superpositions are ever experienced. Your experience of determinate experimental outcomes (and live or dead cats) consists of coherent neuronal superpositions. It’s precisely the fact that the superposition principle of QM never breaks down that allows you phenomenally to simulate a well-behaved classical world where it does. The vehicle of simulation is quantum-coherent; the experiential content of the simulation is robustly classical. Perhaps think of Schrödinger’s neurons, not Schrödinger’s cat. The classical world-simulations run by our minds have been throwaway quantum computers for the last c. 540 million years.

Note this is a theoretically conservative story. Its background assumptions involve no new principle of physics, no inexplicable violation of unitarity, no observer-induced "collapse of the wavefunction", just the bare formalism of the unitary Schrödinger dynamics (cf. Schrödinger equation - Wikipedia).

Dualist philosophers of mind like David Chalmers disagree. Neither classical or quantum physics can explain phenomenal binding even if some form of panpsychism or non-materialist physicalism is true (cf. The Combination Problem for Panpsychism). The “structural mismatch” between the formalism of physics and our phenomenally bound classical world-simulations can’t be bridged.

Maybe Chalmers is right.

Yet to prove his case, it’s not enough for the dualist to demonstrate a structural mismatch between our minds and some cheesy wet lump of neural porridge occupying the four-dimensional space-time of classical physics. The dualist must demonstrate a structural mismatch between the bound phenomenology of our minds and the fundamental high-dimensional space required by the dynamics of the wavefunction (cf. https://www.physicalism.com/hilb...).
Whether such a structural match does or doesn’t exist isn’t a “philosophical” opinion.
It’s an empirical question to be settled by tomorrow’s molecular matter wave-interferometry.


What will the non-classical interference signature reveal?
(cf. an experimentally testable conjecture)

As a non-materialist physicalist, I predict – tentatively – that interferometry will yield a perfect structural match, and the Hard Problem of consciousness will be solved.

Perhaps Cicero had a point.

I don't follow how this leads on to a solution to the hard problem - I posted this question to him on Quora:

I’m not following how this leads on to a solution to the hard problem as Chalmers and Nagel (in What Is It Like to Be a Bat?) define it (roughly “there is something it is like”) … could you say more or have you addressed this elsewhere?
 
A very good question, Steve. If he answers it, will you reproduce his answer here or link us to it when/if it appears on Quora?

These questions concerning the relationship between physics and biology seem to me to be of primary importance, and it seems to me that we humans are a long way from being capable of comprehending that relationship. The last commentator in the Quora thread referred to the following video concerning 'quantum biology', which might be helpful. Since my computer audio set-up is not working I clicked at YT to obtain subtitles. Still have to proceed through the video.

Quantum Biology: The Hidden Nature of Nature

There are probably numerous books and websites available on the subject of quantum biology and I will look for and post links to them.
 
Last edited:
I do question this claim from the material @Soupie quoted above:

"The dualist must demonstrate a structural mismatch between the bound phenomenology of our minds and the fundamental high-dimensional space required by the dynamics of the wavefunction (cf. https://www.physicalism.com/hilb...).
Whether such a structural match does or doesn’t exist isn’t a “philosophical” opinion.
It’s an empirical question to be settled by tomorrow’s molecular matter wave-interferometry."

My sense of the situation is that philosophy and associated disciplines remain necessary to form the many questions raised by human and animal experience and learning that will need to be answered by physicalist experimentation before we can say that we understand the relationships between quantum and classical levels of description of 'what-is' in lived experience in the world. The author/speaker quoted above refers to "the bound phenomenology of our minds." What does he/she mean by 'phenomenology'?
 
I came across the link below to a documentary concerning a three-day conference held at the Perimeter Institute last year on the subject: "Time, Cosmology, Quantum Physics and Philosophy."


Here is the description of the conference at that link:

"The Quantum Tunnel
Published on Mar 8, 2017

In this very special edition of the Quantum Tunnel, we visit the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics to explore some of the deepest scientific and philosophical questions for mankind. We speak to world-class physicists and thinkers; Sean Carroll, Marina Cortes, Fay Dowker, Joao Magueijo, Carlo Rovelli, and Lee Smolin who provide a rare glimpse into the world of theoretical physics and some unique perspectives of how humanity may fit into the greater cosmos. Have you ever wondered why we perceive time as only ever moving forward, whether time is an illusion or pondered the concept of being vs becoming? If so, please join us for a thought-provoking exploration into some of the biggest questions asked by humanity for thousands of years. See the full 3 days of conference talks here: https://perimeterinstitute.ca/confere...

That page links to videotaped summaries and concluding remarks by key speakers at that conference here:

Time in Cosmology | Perimeter Institute


The latter summaries might be especially helpful to us at this point if published papers from the conference are available online. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top