• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Alex Tsakiris and the Skeptiko Podcast - CRITICAL LOOK AND OVERVIEW.

I'm not going to go to the other forum and have a go at the whole thing because, frankly, I can't be arsed. But...

Steve001 said:
In a way, this sounds like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps; so who is doing the re-wiring if not the brain? The suggestion is thus that it is a form of immaterial mind doing it; a mind that has direct causal efficacy on the inner-workings of the brain. This is called “downward causation” in philosophy of mind. Together with physicist Henry Stapp, Schwartz suggests that quantum wave-function collapse at the level of ion channels is the mechanism through which downward causation takes place in the brain.
Click to expand...

None of this in any way follows from the sentences preceding it. And, even if it did, it still doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
 
Steve001 said:
A new topic from Skeptiko with Bernardo Kastrup Alex's new go to man. ... physicist Henry Stapp, Schwartz suggests that quantum wave-function collapse at the level of ion channels is the mechanism through which downward causation takes place in the brain[/URL]. But note: Self-directed neuroplasticity is an empirically observed phenomenon not in dispute; what is in dispute is whether it necessarily entails downward causation.

More

http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/02/evolution-self-directed-neuroplasticity.html
Click to expand...
So, this story requires the existence of an immaterial mind, followed by the existence of 'downward causation' which relies on the existence of the immaterial mind, both not shown to exist?

And this, with some quantum wave-function collapsing thrown in for good measure, is supposed to be an explanation for 'self-directed neuroplasticity', which is supposed to be 'an empirically observed phenomenon not in dispute'?

The article has several links embedded, why no link to proper science for 'empirically observed phenomenon not in dispute'?
 
Last edited:
alex.tsakiris said:
Kuko 4000 said:
I can do my best to make sure that Jerry sees them, I'm quite confident that he'd be happy to answer them.
Click to expand...
Kuko... I enjoy responding to some of your posts (you should join the Skeptiko forum), but you seem a little naive at times... did you really think Jerry was going to respond to any of the stuff about self-directed neuroplasiticity, or Bem or Radin?
Click to expand...



I don't know, never even crossed my mind. For some strange reason you left out the beginning of my post? I will quote it for you in full and bold the part you left out:

Kuko 4000 said:
Now that you've had time to think and form your questions better, why not post your Wallace-related questions clearly to Jerry in his blog or in your own discussion forum, or here for that matter? I can do my best to make sure that Jerry sees them, I'm quite confident that he'd be happy to answer them.
Click to expand...


I haven't listened to your latest podcast yet, so if the questions are there, I'm hoping to see answers from Jerry.
 
Alex, I think this is a good point to explore in more detail since it's very deeply ingrained in many of my "believer" friends. It's also an important jumping point into believing that consciousness can somehow alter external physical attributes:

Alex Tsakiris: It’s the observer effect, Jerry. It’s the double-slit experiment. It’s our…

Dr. Jerry Coyne: Yeah, okay, what does that have to do with…

Alex Tsakiris: Are photons waves or particles, right? So it’s like…

Dr. Jerry Coyne: What does that have to do with evolution?

Alex Tsakiris: It has to do with evolution because what we find is that it’s consciousness. If we put our consciousness one way or another it measures this way or that way. We no longer have laws of physics the way that you talk about them in this high school science way in your USA Today articles.
Click to expand...


You seem to think that consciousness has a special role to play in the double-slit experiment. Would you mind explaining your position on this as clearly as you can?
 
Last edited:
How would one put his or her consciousness one way or another way?
How does one change consciousness' direction?
 
Last edited:
Daylightstar said:
How would one put his or her consciousness one way or another way?
How does one change consciousness' direction?
Click to expand...
You just think about which slit you want the photos to go through and quantum entanglement does the rest.

How it does so, I have no idea.

~~ Paul
 
Is't the "observer effect" just an artifact? As I have understood it, the beauty of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is that there is no longer any observer effect.
 
I just alerted Alex through email about this:

Kuko 4000 said:
You seem to think that consciousness has a special role to play in the double-slit experiment. Would you mind explaining your position on this as clearly as you can?
Click to expand...
 
steenkh said:
Is't the "observer effect" just an artifact? As I have understood it, the beauty of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is that there is no longer any observer effect.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the term 'observer effect' is slightly misleading. Perhaps the term 'measurement effect' would be more accurate.

There's a video somewhere where a white bearded 'scientist' cartoon character 'explains' the observer effect at a double slit experiment.
The video introduces a 'mechanical' eye, blinking not so subtly at the viewer of the video, then 'looks at' the double slit experiment, strongly suggesting that 'looking at' the double slit experiment has an influence on the interference pattern.

'Looking at' is arbitrarily interpreted as consciousness and voila, consciousness rules the double slit experiment.

Pure magical thinking.
 
That's probably a clip from What The Bleep Do We Know (WTBDWK), a very influential (in new age circles) "documentary" about quantum mysticism, etc. Many of my "believer" friends have been fooled by it and other similar shows. I'm just waiting to hear a clarification to Alex's position before moving on.
 
Last edited:
Same for the 'wave-particle duality', as far as I understand it.
You can measure wave- or particle properties, just not at the same time. The thing itself does not change.
Unless there is an argument that the interference by the actual measurement actually changes the thing.
But that would be difficult to attach to consciousness.

But anyways, yes, let's see what Alex has to say.
 
Kuko 4000 said:
...
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2012/01/consciousness-and-double-slit.html
Click to expand...

The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit to single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused towards the double-slit as compared to away
Click to expand...
Why?
factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience1, electrocortical markers of focused attention2, and psychological factors including openness3 and absorption4 significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern.
Click to expand...
Why?
How does Radin believe he has been able to establish factors 1-4 to have a correlation with the double slit interference pattern in such a way, that they can be used to make predictions?
 
Kuko 4000 said:
I guess Alex has decided not to answer my question here(?), he has opened a new thread in his own forum which quotes my recent email:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/3295-question-jref-forum-member.html#post87194

I don't know why Alex doesn't want to post his reply on this forum, nevertheless, this is a good start, I'm waiting to see Alex's reply there :)
Click to expand...

I like the way that you ask him to explain it in his own words, he ignores the question, someone else posts a link to something someone else has said, and he says "yup, that's it".
 
Yeah, I was disappointed, but let's give him enough time and see what happens :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom