On Consciousness

[quarky]

No.


When you're right, you don't need to talk about it. You go on to the next thing.

i wish i had your self confidence.

in your world, you must be like a bull-dozer.

i wish i was like you.
but i simply am not.

i mean that as a compliment.

 

[quarky]

Hiya, Pixy. Just glancing through recent posts, so there may be some context I'm missing, but I'm not seeing your meaning here.

In the standard model, aren't quarks constantly changing color (as they exchange gluons) and flavor (via decay)?

don't know about quarks, but quarky is changing flavor and color.

blobru,
can you smell the change in quarky-ness?

yeah, it's still somewhat rank.

poets to the rescue!

 

[blobru]

Well, if quarky would change his unmentionables - speaking of 'glued-on' - more often (blobru too; neighbours are starting to complain; the ones that haven't passed out).

 

[PixyMisa]

Hiya, Pixy. Just glancing through recent posts, so there may be some context I'm missing, but I'm not seeing your meaning here.

In the standard model, aren't quarks constantly changing color (as they exchange gluons) and flavor (via decay)?

You're right, of course, and what I said was unclear from a physics perspective. They do indeed decay and interact via gluons. What doesn't happen is a change in the internal state of a given quark while it remains outwardly the same - because quarks have no internal state. Every change produces an outwardly different quark, and the set of possible changes is quite small.

A quark's state is summed up by a small set of well-defined quantum numbers; its interactions are likewise well-defined. There's no freedom left for any process like consciousness to exist. If there were, that would mean that quarks would have additional quantum numbers, and that would mean they'd behave very differently to what we observe.

So the notion of quark consciousness is directly contradicted by the Standard Model and by Quantum Chromodynamics, both of which are supported by massive bodies of evidence.

 

[quarky]

bummer.

wait 'till i have to break the news to the quarks.

 

[blobru]

You're right, of course, and what I said was unclear from a physics perspective. They do indeed decay and interact via gluons. What doesn't happen is a change in the internal state of a given quark while it remains outwardly the same - because quarks have no internal state. Every change produces an outwardly different quark, and the set of possible changes is quite small.

A quark's state is summed up by a small set of well-defined quantum numbers; its interactions are likewise well-defined. There's no freedom left for any process like consciousness to exist. If there were, that would mean that quarks would have additional quantum numbers, and that would mean they'd behave very differently to what we observe.

So the notion of quark consciousness is directly contradicted by the Standard Model and by Quantum Chromodynamics, both of which are supported by massive bodies of evidence.

Okay, the set is well-defined [strictly limited] and doesn't change. I guess, as far as 'consciousness' goes, it depends on what consciousness is (blobru states the obvious; hurray!). If it's simply information processing, any set of anything with sufficient complexity and capacity could code for it. On this assumption, it's doubtful individual quarks make the cut (though groups of quarks - why not? [tho' they tend to be awful busy constituting matter; constituting consciousness would be a sort of moonlighting gig]). Otoh, if 'consciousness', and i mean phenomenal waking (or dreaming) consciousness, is more than bare information processing, is bound by and tied to the synchronous cycles of mass synaptic firings we observe in nervous systems (phenomenal consciousness only exists in the gamma band, 30-70 Hz, i think), it's a moot point. Any system, quark, computer chip or otherwise, that couldn't reproduce those patterns, would be disqualified (and for those that could reproduce them, there's still the question whether consciousness is medium-independent: would quarks changing state in those patterns produce the same effects as synaptic firings? would computer switches? would a mass show of hands?). I guess I incline to the show-me school: until some other system does it, it's fun to speculate; but the nervous system is the only one we can study, and we have some way to go yet to nail it [consciousness] down (which tends to make me skeptical of both mystical and computational models, and not much fun at parties).

 

[Perpetual Student]

With all those colors available, has anyone tried to teach a quark to paint?

 

[asydhouse]

Okay, the set is well-defined [strictly limited] and doesn't change. I guess, as far as 'consciousness' goes, it depends on what consciousness is (blobru states the obvious; hurray!). If it's simply information processing, any set of anything with sufficient complexity and capacity could code for it. On this assumption, it's doubtful individual quarks make the cut (though groups of quarks - why not? [tho' they tend to be awful busy constituting matter; constituting consciousness would be a sort of moonlighting gig]). Otoh, if 'consciousness', and i mean phenomenal waking (or dreaming) consciousness, is more than bare information processing, is bound by and tied to the synchronous cycles of mass synaptic firings we observe in nervous systems (phenomenal consciousness only exists in the gamma band, 30-70 Hz, i think), it's a moot point. Any system, quark, computer chip or otherwise, that couldn't reproduce those patterns, would be disqualified (and for those that could reproduce them, there's still the question whether consciousness is medium-independent: would quarks changing state in those patterns produce the same effects as synaptic firings? would computer switches? would a mass show of hands?). I guess I incline to the show-me school: until some other system does it, it's fun to speculate; but the nervous system is the only one we can study, and we have some way to go yet to nail it [consciousness] down (which tends to make me skeptical of both mystical and computational models, and not much fun at parties).

You are exactly the kind of person I'd love to hang out with at parties!

 

[Zeuzzz]

Your grasp of science has been well demonstrated in the past, I can hardly wait for you to post some actual research papers and evidence of shamanic healing of addiction.

Did you not read the sheldrake vs randi thread where my data convinced what may be called a couple of the extremely hard nose skeptics here? If not, I can can post again, and with far modern data than I supplied there, published in eminent journals.

I love you DD

 

[Zeuzzz]

forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9085014

Point out the non scientific points, thanks.

Thanks to that woo-meister and thread destroyer, ZZeuzzz, Mr. Scott's thread has degenerated into a morass of non-scientific babble.
It's unfortunate, since the pursuit of understanding human consciousness can be a fascinating endeavor.

Fascinating it can be indeed. But, you are approaching it in corrrectly. see my sig [/QUOTE]


Please do not ignore this time.

 

[steenkh]

Thanks to that woo-meister and thread destroyer, ZZeuzzz, Mr. Scott's thread has degenerated into a morass of non-scientific babble.
It's unfortunate, since the pursuit of understanding human consciousness can be a fascinating endeavor.

Yes, in the early days of the thread, I was able to learn a lot. Now nothing interesting has been said for months because the thread has been completely taken over by woos.

I think I should either quit reading the thread or ignore all the woos and see what is left.

 

[Dancing David]

Did you not read the sheldrake vs randi thread where my data convinced what may be called a couple of the extremely hard nose skeptics here? If not, I can can post again, and with far modern data than I supplied there, published in eminent journals.

I love you DD

That would be no data then, fine Zeuzzz, you build your reputation yourself.

 

[PixyMisa]

Did you not read the sheldrake vs randi thread where my data convinced what may be called a couple of the extremely hard nose skeptics here? If not, I can can post again, and with far modern data than I supplied there, published in eminent journals.

Read it. Where, exactly, do you think you have convinced anyone of anything?

ETA: I was honestly confused about this, thinking you must be referring to a thread I hadn't seen. Because as you know, I read and actively participated in that thread, and you provided no such data and no coherent argument, and in the end were simply dismissed as deluded. If you think you convinced anyone of anything, quote that post here. Otherwise we'll have to assume you're deluded again.

 

[!Kaggen]

i wish i had your self confidence.

in your world, you must be like a bull-dozer.

i wish i was like you.
but i simply am not.

i mean that as a compliment.

Don't be so kind.

Your approach is a great heuristic.

Being a little wrong lots of times allows for optionality. It is antifragile.
Being very wrong once limits your options. It is fragile.

It is a mathematical fact.

 

[tsig]

Read it. Where, exactly, do you think you have convinced anyone of anything?

ETA: I was honestly confused about this, thinking you must be referring to a thread I hadn't seen. Because as you know, I read and actively participated in that thread, and you provided no such data and no coherent argument, and in the end were simply dismissed as deluded. If you think you convinced anyone of anything, quote that post here. Otherwise we'll have to assume you're deluded again.

I was quite surprised to see his statement about convincing someone on that thread. Looks like your last sentence is true.

 

[Zeuzzz]

What's great about REAL physics is that it doesn't depend on any of that.

Real physics has nothing much to say about biology and consciousness in general. Unless you get into Quantum biology^WP and Quantum mind^WP theories, which much more helpful at usefully bridging this chasm of ignorance between the disciplines.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I was quite surprised to see his statement about convincing someone on that thread. Looks like your last sentence is true.

I meant sheldrake, typo, in a rush. He has convinced skeptics by showing his data of late, I have watched a video where he get attacked relentlessly by questions by someone in the audience, and in the end the person gave him and standing ovation, as he answered each skeptical question objectively and correctly. I also convinced one person that the fact he is doing experiments to prove his vague theory that he is not a write off (farsight). Even though no one seems to have looked at them in great depth, so I will post some soon instead of supplying the links to them.

 

[quarky]

No.


When you're right, you don't need to talk about it. You go on to the next thing.

that 'no' was silly, and i believe incorrect.
as i've seen it, threads that last the longest have an argument going on, or perhaps something more evangelical; bringing the poor fool out of his delusions, etc.

so, your knee-jerk 'no' to my statement made no sense.
obviously, this is a mostly irrelevant nit-pic, as per the nature of the o.p.

but don't i get to call you on your very rare blunders?

 

[PixyMisa]

Real physics has nothing much to say about biology and consciousness in general.

Wrong wrong wrongity wrong.

Physics rules everything in biology; it has so much to say that you take it all for granted.

 

[PixyMisa]

I meant sheldrake, typo, in a rush. He has convinced skeptics by showing his data of late

No.