Are You Conscious?

[rocketdodger]

Well, it's very telling that someone OTHER than westprog actually manages to clear that up.

But if what you say is true, who cares ?

It goes back to a statement I made about being able to order all relevant events in the universe.

I was saying that one can conceptually look at sequential states of the universe and order all of the events in a causal fashion. This particle bangs into that one, this force is imparted on that particle which then bangs into that other particle, etc.

Then westprog objected because relativity states that there is no absolute "now" in the universe.

So for the last two pages I have been trying to explain why his/her objection is irrelevant, and in at least two posts during this latest exchange he/she claimed that not only does relativity imply there is no "now" but also that it implies there is no absolute ordering of events.

Then you and I pointed out that this is not true because you can order events according to causal dependence.

Finally (thank you for your patience), in order to not seem entirely wrong, westprog pointed out that he/she was actually talking about events that are not causally dependent when he/she said events can't be ordered in an absolute way.

So that is the answer to your question -- westprog cares because westprog wanted to be right at least once in this discussion. And he/she is indeed correct on this minor point -- congratulations to westprog!

The fact that, when all is said and done, the thing he/she was right about has no bearing at all on the original issue may or may not mean something. I leave you to decide that.

 

[Trent Wray]

Okay, I totally realize I'm jumping into the middle of something ... so please feel free to COMPLETELY ignore my question/comment if you want to let the previous debate rest. And not having read all 46 pages of this thread, I hope I'm not repeating what someone has already mentioned ....

..... but, does the concept of quantum entanglement throw a monkey wrench into any of this debate, and if yes/no then why/why not in your opinion? And I won't even mention the idea that the speed of light isn't constant (i.e., that it has been slowing down or speeding up over time), or that cause-effect may or may not be broken depending on whether there was ever anything to Hawking's ideas that black holes absorb matter and that said matter "goes nowhere".

I'm not trying to wake something that wants to sleep, but I'm genuinely interested in the opinions of those who are well versed in general causality and relativity, etc ...

 

[westprog]

Okay, I totally realize I'm jumping into the middle of something ... so please feel free to COMPLETELY ignore my question/comment if you want to let the previous debate rest. And not having read all 46 pages of this thread, I hope I'm not repeating what someone has already mentioned ....

..... but, does the concept of quantum entanglement throw a monkey wrench into any of this debate, and if yes/no then why/why not in your opinion? And I won't even mention the idea that the speed of light isn't constant (i.e., that it has been slowing down or speeding up over time), or that cause-effect may or may not be broken depending on whether there was ever anything to Hawking's ideas that black holes absorb matter and that said matter "goes nowhere".

I'm not trying to wake something that wants to sleep, but I'm genuinely interested in the opinions of those who are well versed in general causality and relativity, etc ...

AFAIAA, quantum entanglement doesn't violate anything in relativity, though Einstein didn't like it ("Spooky action at a distance" IIRC). The non-constant speed of light remains hypothetical. Cause-effect may already be broken by quantum theory - but in a quite different way than could happen by exceeding the speed of light.

 

[Belz...]

..... but, does the concept of quantum entanglement throw a monkey wrench into any of this debate, and if yes/no then why/why not in your opinion?

Why would it ?

And I won't even mention the idea that the speed of light isn't constant

You shouldn't. It's constant.

 

[westprog]

You shouldn't. It's constant.

In a vacuum. The fact that the speed of light can be slowed in some media doesn't have any particular implications for physics. If there's an upper limit, then relativity works.

 

[Belz...]

In a vacuum. The fact that the speed of light can be slowed in some media doesn't have any particular implications for physics. If there's an upper limit, then relativity works.

The speed of light is not "slowed down". The photons are absorbed and then re-transmitted. Photons always travel at c.

 

[westprog]

The speed of light is not "slowed down". The photons are absorbed and then re-transmitted. Photons always travel at c.

Indeed - appropriate clarification. c is one of the building blocks of physics. It's what photons travel at.

 

[Trent Wray]

Why would it ?



You shouldn't. It's constant.

I mentioned quantum entanglement because of the idea that involves particles having an effect on one another at speeds faster than light, or independent of the speed of light. ... possibly of course.

And there was a reason I said "I won't even mention the idea that the speed of light isn't constant, or hasn't always been constant" .. lol

 

[rocketdodger]

I mentioned quantum entanglement because of the idea that involves particles having an effect on one another at speeds faster than light, or independent of the speed of light. ... possibly of course.

And there was a reason I said "I won't even mention the idea that the speed of light isn't constant, or hasn't always been constant" .. lol

It does seem to throw a wrench into the works when it comes to viewing time as something distinct from the order of causal events.

Which would of course be more evidence that the only important thing -- period -- is causality, and everything else reduces to it.

 

[Dancing David]

The speed of light is constant, otherwise it would mess with the fine structure constant alpha and the spectrums of stars would vary from what we see. If there is a violation of Bell's inequality it will not use photons, now the speed of light is an average, due to Heisenbergs Indeterminancy Principle. So it will vary slightly.

(I asked about the speed of light thing a long time ago here.In SMT)

 

[Belz...]

Bumpiddy doo...

Say, Westprog, Aku...

Did any of you actually provide a definition of consciousness ? It might help carry the whole debate forward if I knew how either of you defined it.

 

[westprog]

Bumpiddy doo...

Say, Westprog, Aku...

Did any of you actually provide a definition of consciousness ? It might help carry the whole debate forward if I knew how either of you defined it.

I've put forward the suggestion that there are inevitably fundamental things that cannot be defined precisely, because eventually we run out of more basic levels upon which definitions can be built. I also suggested that consciousness may be one of these basic building blocks.

 

[Belz...]

So you have NO definition of consciousness, whatsoever ?

If somebody asks you "what is consciousness ?" you reply "it is what it is" ?

 

[rocketdodger]

I've put forward the suggestion that there are inevitably fundamental things that cannot be defined precisely, because eventually we run out of more basic levels upon which definitions can be built. I also suggested that consciousness may be one of these basic building blocks.

That is a very good position to take, if one wishes consciousness to remain in the realm of magic that humans can't understand.

 

[westprog]

So you have NO definition of consciousness, whatsoever ?

If somebody asks you "what is consciousness ?" you reply "it is what it is" ?

I can refer to consciousness in a way that allows other people who experience consciousness to understand what I mean. I don't think the definition would give any idea of my consciousness to someone who lacked it, or who experienced it in a different way.

 

[ChrisH]

I was conscious that I was entering a vote -- so I voted for 'conscious'.

Next question?

 

[Belz...]

I can refer to consciousness in a way that allows other people who experience consciousness to understand what I mean. I don't think the definition would give any idea of my consciousness to someone who lacked it, or who experienced it in a different way.

Irrelevant. In order for us to probe what consciousness is, scientifically, we have to be able to define what we mean by the word. So what do YOU mean by the word ?

 

[westprog]

Irrelevant. In order for us to probe what consciousness is, scientifically, we have to be able to define what we mean by the word. So what do YOU mean by the word ?

Yes, defining consciousness would be a necessary first step in scientifically investigating it. Our failure to produce a good definition is one reason why it's a Hard Problem.

There's no difficulty in producing a bad definition, like "consciousness is self-referential information processing". But I don't want to give a bad definition.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, defining consciousness would be a necessary first step in scientifically investigating it. Our failure to produce a good definition is one reason why it's a Hard Problem.

YOUR failure to provide a good definition. You still haven't answered my question!!

There's no difficulty in producing a bad definition, like "consciousness is self-referential information processing". But I don't want to give a bad definition.

I don't think self-referential information processing is a definition of consciousness as much as it's an explanation of how it works.

 

[Dancing David]

I can refer to consciousness in a way that allows other people who experience consciousness to understand what I mean. I don't think the definition would give any idea of my consciousness to someone who lacked it, or who experienced it in a different way.

Then why is it easy to define music?

I can refer to music in a way that allows other people who experience music to understand what I mean. I don't think the definition would give any idea of my music to someone who lacked it, or who experienced it in a different way.


Why is it different for consciousness than music?

(Could be I have made an error.)