Quantum Field Theory: The Woo Stops Here

[jt512]

The thing is, for anyone with unexplainable experiences of their own, or who has studied the last 150 years of research into all things woo and come to a favorable conclusion, it's easier to believe that science today compared to the science of the future is as flawed as science five hundred years ago is compared to the science of today.

You should speak for yourself. I've had experiences I can't explain, and I've read considerable research on purported paranormal phenomena, and I'm convinced not persuaded by any of it. I think the research is biased. As an experienced statistician and data analyst, I know all too well how easy it is for a motivated researcher to bias experimental results in a favored direction, even if the researcher is unaware that he is doing it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Wicked_ways took a look at one of the same ones I did, if you were counting that one, so 3 out of 4, for the variable that you actually stated. No fatal flaws have been pointed out in the one that concluded that a particular set of testing did not provide support for telepathy, when certain flaws were removed. 4 out of 4 that did not support Ed Glosser's position, yes. 4 out of 5 and 5 out 5 if you were not counting that one, though.

Thank you for the clarification.

5/5 not providing the slightest evidence for the woo! they do...

 

[NotEvenWrong]

False dichotomy.

I wasn't even stating a dichotomy, I was just asking what tsig believed.

Mind is brain function. When the brain dies, the mind dies with it.

That has nothing to do with QFT then. It is a neuroscience question.

If you want to assert that there is some sort of afterlife, the mind must be conveyed to it somehow, and that somehow must be a field interaction, because everything that happens is a field interaction.

Well, no, not really. Actually, not at all in fact. That assumes a bunch of things about physicalism, causality, etc. One cannot derive qualia from the fundamentals of QFT; i.e. one cannot show that subjective experiences are a logical consequence of the existence of quantized fields. (If you can, I would love for you to show your work. And I am quite sure a Nobel Prize would be in order.)

And even if we assume physicality applies to all metaphysical questions, and in particular this one, you are still wrong. Not everything has to be in physical contact via a field to invoke a change. See Bell's theorem and quantum entanglement. In fact, local realism is completely incompatible with quantum mechanics.

Sorry, but it is in fact you who are wrong about, well, everything to put it bluntly.

That field interaction can't be any of the known fields, because (a) they don't do that, and (b) if it were, we would have detected it already. And Dr Carroll's point, it can't be an unknown field, because if it were, we would have already detected the corresponding particle, even if we didn't know what it did.

So there is no afterlife.

Wrong. See above. If consciousness = neurons firing it is a neuroscience question. Trying to invoke QFT when QFT has absolutely nothing to do with it is what is woo here. And you didn't even get the QFT part right if I grant you all your hidden assumptions about physicalism and causality.

You can keep telling me I am wrong though, if that makes you feel better.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Self-reporting, behaviour, physiological statistics (vital signs), and neuroimaging, in combination.

These are all correlates of subjective experiences. They are not direct measurements of it.

No it isn't. Subjective experiences are the result of electrochemical signals in the brain. The connection between the two is complex, but it is direct.

Well, perhaps. But you certainly haven't proven that. Correlation does not equal causation. And if subjective experiences are only a result of electrochemical signals in the brain, then we would never be able to generate subjective experiences in a computer (unless we completely change the architecture). I tend to think more is going on than just electrochemistry, and it's not the correct level of abstraction.

First, it's not an assumption that consciousness is the result of neural activity, it's a conclusion based on more evidence than perhaps any other result in all of science.

It is an assumption that correlation = causation in this case. Which may be true, but it's still an assumption. Unless, like I asked in my previous reply, you can somehow show that qualia is a natural logical consequence of electrochemical interactions (or quantized fields, if you want to go back to QFT for some weird reason). Otherwise, yes, it's just a (well hidden at times) assumption.

Second, as noted above, neuroscience does not allow for any sort of afterlife. QFT comes in when people try to invoke a sort of physics-of-the-gaps argument to claim that an afterlife is still possible. QFT proves that there are no such gaps.

Well, if "neuroscience" (as if there are no disagreements in the field) states that consciousness is 100% the result of neurons firing and there is absolutely no way this is wrong and there is absolutely no way there is any model error, then "yes" neuroscience does "not allow" any sort of afterlife. I am not sure all of these assumptions or warranted or even make sense though.

Again, QFT does not have anything to do with consciousness or (lack of) an afterlife. I have no idea why you feel the need to keep invoking it when it deals exclusively with subatomic particles.

You haven't ruined anyone's day; you're just wrong.

You can keep telling yourself that. I don't mind.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

NotEvenWrong

Welcome to the forum.
I get the impression, even from your few posts, that you would really like there to be an explanation for consciousness having some kind of out-of-brain existence. Is this correct? If so, I would really like to know why.

Your impression is not correct. I do not think there is any strong scientific evidence for an "afterlife". I don't think the term afterlife even makes much sense. I just hate sloppy thinking, and I particularly hate it when people invoke fancy technical jargon to justify their beliefs when the terms they are using have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Ironically, this is pretty much the definition of "woo", is it not?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

If the afterlife has a connection to physical world, it does have everything to do with QFT, which is a model of the physical world. If your afterlife happens separate from the physical world in a kind of heaven with no interaction with the physical world, then QFT has no bearing on it. But if you claim you can communicate with the dead, or if living people claim they can remember anything about past lives, then QFT is involved, and then we can say with great confidence that these claims are false.

Agreed. These are very specific claims about "afterlife" though, while the claims of others in this thread and in linked videos are much more general and far reaching. But I do agree with what you just wrote 100%.

Neurons are made out of the stuff that QFT describes, so neurons can not do what QFT rules out.

Right, but if one claims consciousness = neurons then it doesn't make sense to invoke QFT. You just need to invoke neuroscience. Neuroscience has to be compatible with QFT for obvious reasons. QFT doesn't "rule out" an afterlife anymore than neuroscience does, so there is literally no point to invoke in capital letters The Quantum Field Theory, unless you're just trying to use technical jargon to sway your audience.

Even if neurons were not subject to QFT because they are intermediate between the "soul" and the body, then QFT still rules the physical body, and we know that physical bodies are not acted upon by any other forces than physical forces.

Agreed again. Neurons have to be subject to QFT though (unless there is some serious model error going on), so there's no need to go beyond that.

You can only win by toppling QFT and supplanting it by something better.

Well, QFT will certainly be supplanted eventually as it's not compatible with general relativity. I don't know what you mean by "winning" in this context.

As PixyMisa said, you have not ruined anybody's day, and the assumptions are not unwarranted. The only assumption here is that QFT is an accurate model of the physical world at our energy levels, and that assumption is extremely well supported by observations, including the successful observation of the Higg's boson.

PixyMisa seemed to get a little upset that someone was questioning his beliefs about The Quantum Field Theory And The True Nature Of Everything. Either that, or he just really likes to say people are "wrong about everything" without really offering a counter argument or evidence. Usually those kinds of statements on the internet are correlated with a sour mood. (As I said, correlation does not necessarily equal causation though. But I feel pretty confident in this case. )

As for the rest of the paragraph, when someone says "QFT proves there is no afterlife", there are way way way x 100 more assumptions than just "QFT is an accurate model of the physical world at our energy levels". I think I have outlined some of the other hidden assumptions present pretty well in other posts.

 

[PixyMisa]

I wasn't even stating a dichotomy, I was just asking what tsig believed.

But what you offered was a false dichotomy.

That has nothing to do with QFT then. It is a neuroscience question.

They're not separate things. Neuroscience is Applied Quantum Field Theory.

Well, no, not really.

Sorry, yes, really.

Actually, not at all in fact. That assumes a bunch of things about physicalism, causality, etc. One cannot derive qualia from the fundamentals of QFT; i.e. one cannot show that subjective experiences are a logical consequence of the existence of quantized fields.

Everything that exists is a consequence of the existence of quantised fields, because that's how the Universe works.

It's like claiming that Rocky Road ice cream cannot be derived from the fundamentals of atomic physics, and therefore Rocky Road ice cream is not made of atoms.

And even if we assume physicality applies to all metaphysical questions, and in particular this one, you are still wrong. Not everything has to be in physical contact via a field to invoke a change. See Bell's theorem and quantum entanglement.

No, you see Bell's theorem and quantum entanglement. And then tell me what it is that quantum entanglement doesn't do. Hint: It doesn't do precisely the critical thing we are discussing here.

Wrong. See above. If consciousness = neurons firing it is a neuroscience question. Trying to invoke QFT when QFT has absolutely nothing to do with it is what is woo here. And you didn't even get the QFT part right if I grant you all your hidden assumptions about physicalism and causality.

And you're wrong yet again, and clearly didn't pay any attention to either Dr Carroll's lecture or to the discussion here. Go watch it again.

 

[PixyMisa]

These are all correlates of subjective experiences. They are not direct measurements of it.

And what is a direct measurement?

Well, perhaps. But you certainly haven't proven that. Correlation does not equal causation.

That's a convenient phrase to trot out when faced with overwhelming evidence, isn't it?

But it conveniently ignores every study and experiment in neuroscience and every related field in the entire history of science, all of which tell us exactly the same thing: Mind is brain function.

And if subjective experiences are only a result of electrochemical signals in the brain, then we would never be able to generate subjective experiences in a computer (unless we completely change the architecture).

The brain is a computer.

It is an assumption that correlation = causation in this case.

Once again, no, it's a conclusion. We not only observe that we can change the mind by changing the brain, we have a detailed map of what changes affect what, and how.

There is no such causal path in the opposite direction.

Mind is brain function.

Unless, like I asked in my previous reply, you can somehow show that qualia is a natural logical consequence of electrochemical interactions (or quantized fields, if you want to go back to QFT for some weird reason). Otherwise, yes, it's just a (well hidden at times) assumption.

Qualia don't exist.

Well, if "neuroscience" (as if there are no disagreements in the field) states that consciousness is 100% the result of neurons firing and there is absolutely no way this is wrong and there is absolutely no way there is any model error, then "yes" neuroscience does "not allow" any sort of afterlife.

That is correct.

I am not sure all of these assumptions or warranted or even make sense though.

But unless you can actually demonstrate an error - with evidence, not just with your personal, irrational disbelief - we don't care.

Again, QFT does not have anything to do with consciousness or (lack of) an afterlife. I have no idea why you feel the need to keep invoking it when it deals exclusively with subatomic particles.

That would be because you're not responding to what I actually wrote.

I said: QFT comes in when people try to invoke a sort of physics-of-the-gaps argument to claim that an afterlife is still possible. QFT proves that there are no such gaps.

Neuroscience already disallows any sort of afterlife. QFT comes in after that and rejects any appeal on the usual grounds of "you don't know everything".

 

[PixyMisa]

Right, but if one claims consciousness = neurons then it doesn't make sense to invoke QFT. You just need to invoke neuroscience. Neuroscience has to be compatible with QFT for obvious reasons.

Neuroscience only has to be compatible with QFT because QFT happens to be the correct underlying model of reality. It makes no direct difference to neuroscience whether there are three types of neutrino, or four, or two.

QFT doesn't "rule out" an afterlife anymore than neuroscience does

And here is where you are wrong, and this is the entire point of Dr Carroll's lecture. QFT does indeed rule out an afterlife more than neuroscience does, because it is a more general model of the Universe. Neuroscience tells us how the brain works, and how minds arise from brains, but it says nothing about quarks and gluons and renormalisation groups.

There is nothing in neuroscience that could possibly allow for any kind of afterlife. And as I said before, QFT tells us that there is nothing outside of neuroscience, known or unknown, that could possibly allow for any kind of afterlife either.

PixyMisa seemed to get a little upset that someone was questioning his beliefs about The Quantum Field Theory And The True Nature Of Everything.

Not upset. You're just wrong.

As for the rest of the paragraph, when someone says "QFT proves there is no afterlife", there are way way way x 100 more assumptions than just "QFT is an accurate model of the physical world at our energy levels".

Then you should have no trouble showing one of those assumptions.

I think I have outlined some of the other hidden assumptions present pretty well in other posts.

Not yet, but you're welcome to try.

 

[steenkh]

Agreed. These are very specific claims about "afterlife" though, while the claims of others in this thread and in linked videos are much more general and far reaching. But I do agree with what you just wrote 100%.

I am glad that we agree, but I wonder what other kinds claims of of afterlife is not ruled out by physics?

Right, but if one claims consciousness = neurons then it doesn't make sense to invoke QFT. You just need to invoke neuroscience.

Well, neuroscience does not rule out an afterlife like QFT does, so yes, it is necessary to invoke QFT.

QFT doesn't "rule out" an afterlife anymore than neuroscience does, so there is literally no point to invoke in capital letters The Quantum Field Theory, unless you're just trying to use technical jargon to sway your audience.

Again, what kind of an afterlife is not ruled out by QFT?

Well, QFT will certainly be supplanted eventually as it's not compatible with general relativity. I don't know what you mean by "winning" in this context.

Correct, but the point of Carrol's talk was that at the energy levels that we live in, even an improved model will not be different from the one we have now.

By "winning", I meant that you could win the argument.

As for the rest of the paragraph, when someone says "QFT proves there is no afterlife", there are way way way x 100 more assumptions than just "QFT is an accurate model of the physical world at our energy levels". I think I have outlined some of the other hidden assumptions present pretty well in other posts.

I must have missed it then. So far I have only seen an attempt to shift attention to neuroscience, apparently in the belief that neuroscience would not support the conclusions that can be drawn from QFT.

You seem to accept the argument that "souls" and afterlife cannot influence our physical lives without our noticing it through particle experiments. then just what is your point?

 

[Donn]

I took "afterlife" to mean what it says: life after this physical known life.

In order for the life (the mind, one assumes) to travel to this afterlife place, it would take some physical mode of transport - that is one of the known forms of QFT.

No unknowns, at this scale, it is said, exist, therefore this transport would have to be on EM or baryonic means (whatever the specifics, within QFT)

As far as I know, there are no reports of high-volume data transfer around the time of death of humans. It appears that the data only leaves the mind by way of degeneration into ash and soil, etc.

If the life cannot reach the afterlife, there cannot be an afterlife for the life.

 

[jond]

If understand it correctly, what the video does point out is that QFT puts to rest the popular notion that consciousness is a "thing" that exists separate from our brains and somehow interacts with them, as though our brains are like radio receivers. This would, similarly, put to rest most notions of "afterlife."

 

[NotEvenWrong]

But what you offered was a false dichotomy.

A false dichotomy is an argument where someone presents two alternative views as the only options. I wasn't making an argument. I wasn't saying one of them was the only option. I was asking what he specifically (one, the other, both, or neither) believed. Thus, it was not a false dichotomy. (Can I say QED here or would that be too condescending?)

They're not separate things. Neuroscience is Applied Quantum Field Theory.

Haha. No. Nowhere in the history of ever has anyone ever tried to solve a neuroscience problem by using quantum field theory. That would be the most ridiculous thing ever.

Just for the laughs, can you link me to a paper in a reputable neuroscience journal that has actually used quantum field theory to solve a problem in neuroscience? Philosophy of the mind stuff doesn't count. I mean solving a real neuroscience problem.

(Hint: Just because neuroscience is compatible with quantum field theory doesn't mean it is "Applied Quantum Field Theory".)

Sorry, yes, really.

And the answer is still nope, no matter how many times you say this.

Everything that exists is a consequence of the existence of quantised fields, because that's how the Universe works.

Well, except for the little fact QFT is completely incompatible with general relativity, so it's clearly not a complete description of reality. So no, it's really not How The Universe Works. It's a very accurate model used to predict how the universe behaves at a specific finite range of energies.

Then you have the fallacy of equating the model of reality with reality itself. You know, all these assumptions that you're making that you claim you're not making.

It's like claiming that Rocky Road ice cream cannot be derived from the fundamentals of atomic physics, and therefore Rocky Road ice cream is not made of atoms.

You can quite easily show how rocky road ice cream is made up of atoms. Because it's made of milk, cream, sugar, and whatever else. Which are all made of atoms. Subjective experiences are not made of atoms, unfortunately. They are correlated with things in the brain, but they obviously aren't "made" of them. Or at least this "obvious" connection hasn't even been attempted yet. Are you still working on showing subjective experiences are a logical consequence of quantized fields? (If so, are you starting to realize it's tougher than it looks which is why no one has ever been able to do it?)

So no, this analogy doesn't work at all and you're wrong (again).

No, you see Bell's theorem and quantum entanglement. And then tell me what it is that quantum entanglement doesn't do. Hint: It doesn't do precisely the critical thing we are discussing here.

I am not saying information is transmitted to the soul by quantum entanglement. Sheesh. I was just pointing out to you that nonlocal realism isn't even compatible with QFT, so even if I grant you all your physicalist assumptions you're still wrong, because you don't need a field to change the state of a particle or collection of particles.

Not only are you wrong under different assumptions, you are wrong under your own assumptions.

And you're wrong yet again, and clearly didn't pay any attention to either Dr Carroll's lecture or to the discussion here. Go watch it again.

I'll watch it again if you can tell me specifically what time in the video he discusses that which shows I am wrong. If I watch it again, will you agree to take basic physics and neuroscience courses as a supplement to watching popular science videos?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

And what is a direct measurement?

Of subjective experiences? You can't take a direct measurement, for obvious reasons. A direct measurement of neuron action potential would involve something like patch clamping and taking a voltage and/or current measurement. i.e. directly measuring the physical quantity you're trying to measure using instrumentation. MRI's are measuring magnetic fields and converting it to an image, so it's "directly measuring" magnetic fields.

Does that answer your question? Sorry but it's not clear to me what is confusing here.

That's a convenient phrase to trot out when faced with overwhelming evidence, isn't it?

Perhaps, but I generally only use it when someone is saying things like "X correlated to Y implies X causes Y". Like you're doing here.

But it conveniently ignores every study and experiment in neuroscience and every related field in the entire history of science, all of which tell us exactly the same thing: Mind is brain function.

No. No, it doesn't. "All" (? Man, every study in every related field in the history of science! That's a lot. Sure you're not exaggerating? You can just invoke QFT if so.) these studies use a (very, very useful) assumption that mind is brain function, since they are studying the physical correlates. They haven't proven correlation is causation. And neuroscience (the actual field of study) does not even deal with the philosophical question of consciousness, pretty much as a rule, so I don't even know what you're talking about. Nothing of substance, is my guess.

The brain is a computer.

It many ways, sure it can be thought of as a computer.

Once again, no, it's a conclusion. We not only observe that we can change the mind by changing the brain, we have a detailed map of what changes affect what, and how.

BZZZT, no. It is a conclusion under very specific (and yes, very very useful for the purposes of research) assumptions. It is not a "conclusion" in the sense of "this is how reality is".

There is no such causal path in the opposite direction.

You like to say things without proving them, don't you?

Mind is brain function.

Maybe! Possibly! Probably(?)

Qualia don't exist.

Lol. Maybe you are a p-zombie, but that doesn't mean everyone else is too. Some of us actually do experience things, so good luck proving that these things which exist because I have direct experience of them existing don't actually exist.

That is correct.

Glad to know that we're making progress.

But unless you can actually demonstrate an error - with evidence, not just with your personal, irrational disbelief - we don't care.

I am not sure what you mean. Model error is a real thing and neuroscientists don't all agree. This is obvious and is all I was saying. Also model of reality does not equal reality, etc.

What does it have to do with a personal (and irrational) disbelief? I'm not exactly making any logical leaps here.

That would be because you're not responding to what I actually wrote.

I said: QFT comes in when people try to invoke a sort of physics-of-the-gaps argument to claim that an afterlife is still possible. QFT proves that there are no such gaps.

Neuroscience already disallows any sort of afterlife. QFT comes in after that and rejects any appeal on the usual grounds of "you don't know everything".

This all still assumes that everything which exists is physical, which is an assumption that I seriously doubt those who believe in an afterlife hold, so I don't understand what your point is.

Is this "explaining the afterlife in terms of QFT" a real thing that "afterlife believers" really do, and it's a common problem you are experiencing? Or are you just tilting at windmills?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Going to keep this brief and the server is running painfully slow for me anyway.

I am glad that we agree, but I wonder what other kinds claims of of afterlife is not ruled out by physics?

Any afterlife that is not governed by physics, I suppose. As I mentioned above, I doubt many afterlife proponents are physicalists/materialists.

Well, neuroscience does not rule out an afterlife like QFT does, so yes, it is necessary to invoke QFT.

I'm confused. Isn't the physicalist/materialist view that consciousness is governed by electrochemical interactions between neurons in the brain? So when that goes *poof*, so does consciousness? Or is there a more elaborate theory of consciousness built from the foundations of quantized fields, so we're talking about QFT here in this thread to rule that out as well? (If so, what in QFT is causing consciousness that is not covered by neurons? I'm legitimately curious.)

Again, what kind of an afterlife is not ruled out by QFT?

Any "afterlife" that is not governed by physicalist assumptions, I guess? Again though, to my knowledge, there are no QFT papers that even discuss consciousness (and by extension, an "afterlife") so QFT doesn't even address questions in this realm.

If you are proposing some type of scientifically testable model for an "afterlife" that uses the tenets of QFT, I am all ears. Or if you want to show me someone, somewhere (anywhere), making this argument. Otherwise there is obviously no point in invoking QFT to refute a point no one is even making.

Correct, but the point of Carrol's talk was that at the energy levels that we live in, even an improved model will not be different from the one we have now.

Our philosophical view of the universe is drastically different now due to quantum mechanics than before under Newtonian physics, even if we aren't personally affected by quarks and neutron stars. Model of reality does not equal reality.

By "winning", I meant that you could win the argument.

I am not arguing for any new (specific) model, nor for an afterlife. Just pointing out how nonsensical it is to invoke QFT to "argue" against an afterlife when it is a question of consciousness which is a philosophical question first and a neuroscience question second (since neuroscience does not explicitly deal with the hard problem of consciousness).

I must have missed it then. So far I have only seen an attempt to shift attention to neuroscience, apparently in the belief that neuroscience would not support the conclusions that can be drawn from QFT.

What conclusions about consciousness can be drawn from QFT that cannot be drawn from neuroscience, under the assumptions of physicalism? People keep saying this but all I have seen are vague references to particles transmitting souls to heaven. Who is arguing for this mechanism?

If you actually did miss what other assumptions I outlined, the biggest one is "physicalism is absolutely true and has been shown to be true". Others being "model of reality = reality" (false, as anyone who has worked in a quantitative field knows) and maybe something else like "just because QFT makes very accurate predictions under certain energy scales does not mean it models everything". For a non-soul'sy example, try to use QFT to map a genotype in an organism to a phenotype.

You seem to accept the argument that "souls" and afterlife cannot influence our physical lives without our noticing it through particle experiments. then just what is your point?

Well, yes, but this only holds under the assumptions of physicalism. Which, AFAIK, no one who believes in an afterlife holds as true. My point is that it's ridiculous to invoke QFT in these discussions for any reason. And that it is clearly being used to try to bolster a position for no rational reason, and is also being used to try to sway an audience using technical jargon (OMG Physics!! Fields!!! Quantums!!!) when it doesn't apply, at all.

 

[SusanB-M1]

NotEvenWrong

You probably won't be interested to read this, but, you know, I'll take PixyMisa's posts against yours anyday of the week!!

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Neuroscience only has to be compatible with QFT because QFT happens to be the correct underlying model of reality. It makes no direct difference to neuroscience whether there are three types of neutrino, or four, or two.

Eh, no. It makes correct predictions under certain energy scales. It doesn't solve philosophy, which is what you are basically implying here. It's not even right under all energy scales. Great model, sure! The ultimate answer to everything? Lol, not even going to answer that.

And here is where you are wrong, and this is the entire point of Dr Carroll's lecture. QFT does indeed rule out an afterlife more than neuroscience does, because it is a more general model of the Universe. Neuroscience tells us how the brain works, and how minds arise from brains, but it says nothing about quarks and gluons and renormalisation groups.

And QFT tells us nothing about how neuronal interactions give rise to subjective experiences, as I've said a bunch already. You're making no substantive point here. "Rule out more" doesn't even make sense when no one is arguing for quantum mechanical mechanisms for soul transport.

There is nothing in neuroscience that could possibly allow for any kind of afterlife. And as I said before, QFT tells us that there is nothing outside of neuroscience, known or unknown, that could possibly allow for any kind of afterlife either.

Neuroscience isn't philosophy and it doesn't deal with metaphysics, so yeah it doesn't "allow" for any kind of afterlife. I accept that. It assumes physicalism. It has to, because it is an empirical science.

"QFT tells use that there is nothing outside of neuroscience.... that could possible allow for an afterlife either."

I don't even know what this means. There are no QFT papers on consciousness or an afterlife. If you can show me a QFT paper that derives the impossibility of an afterlife, I'm all ears (lol). I'm guessing the guy that wrote it lost his funding shortly afterwards though. "Pro-afterlife" obviously isn't a physicalist position to take, anyway.

Not upset. You're just wrong.

The Quantum Mechanical Theory of Fields of Everything That Exists proves that I am right, and you are wrong. Sorry. (I don't actually have to show any of my work linking QFT to a claim, do I? Can't we just invoke it for no reason in this thread and that works as proof?)

Then you should have no trouble showing one of those assumptions.


Not yet, but you're welcome to try.

I have indeed at least hinted at them at other points in this thread. But if you really did completely miss them, I explicitly noted a few of them in my reply to steenkh. Sorry, I missed your last post and replied out of order.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

NotEvenWrong

You probably won't be interested to read this, but, you know, I'll take PixyMisa's posts against yours anyday of the week!!

SusanB-M1,
I get the impression, based on the few posts of yours I have read, that you would really like there to be an explanation of consciousness that has its roots in quantum field theory. Is this correct? If so, I would really like to know why.

 

[dlorde]

I take a few days off and miss most of this fascinating thread. I'm glad Carroll's video is finally getting the attention it deserves here - thanks to Pixy for that (Carroll also makes the same point in another video I can't find right now).

I just have a few catch-up observations (some have been made already)...

As has been mentioned, QFT doesn't have to be the whole story; like Newtonian mechanics, it will probably be supplanted by a more complete model, but at everyday scales and energies it tells us the rules of the game, which means we know there are no new or unexpected pieces and we know what is and is not possible within this range.

The brain isn't a receiver - as Fizil says in #151, #157, et al. Experiment has shown that every measurable capacity we attribute to consciousness is mediated by some part of the brain and can be disrupted by disruption of that part of brain. Not only is there no conceivable mechanism for the proposed signal and its reception, there's nothing for it to do that the brain doesn't already do itself; it's redundant.

Personal experience & intuition is and unreliable guide to reality - hence the long refinement of the scientific method. RCTs and studies with double & triple blinding are difficult, lengthy, tedious, and expensive to run; they would not be done this way if it was not absolutely necessary.

Regarding Ian Stevenson, reincarnation, etc. I've spent some time looking at much of it, and spent time on Carol Bowman's 'Past Life Forum' reincarnation web site trying to find out what was behind these beliefs (most of my posts are still there). Mostly I tried to correct the pseudoscience on the forum, but we did talk about evidence and discussed some studies (Stevenson and others) and some attempts to validate the data, which typically showed that where the story could be checked, there were more plausible mundane explanations (worth noting that the vast majority of these reports originated in cultures where reincarnation was a common belief - coincidence or confirmation bias?). Eventually, Sunniva (administrator emeritus), who seemed among the most fair & open-minded there, concluded "Basically, believers don't want the truth unless the truth fits them... I think we should just accept that reincarnation is faith, not science.". Oh, and the little kid talking about having been a pilot has been shown to be confabulation - he did have access to information that was claimed to be from a previous life, for example, he'd been taken to an air museum prior to the claims and shown great interest, etc.

Most of us are interested in psi & the paranormal - that's why we're here - some of us once believed in that stuff, so many of us have read the Radin studies and others, and are aware of the refutations.

Consciousness is brain activity - for very readable chapter and verse by one of the lead researches in the field, see Stanislas Dehaene's 'Consciousness and the Brain'.

I think it should be Zilbot, not Xilbot

 

[tsig]

Going to keep this brief and the server is running painfully slow for me anyway.



Any afterlife that is not governed by physics, I suppose. As I mentioned above, I doubt many afterlife proponents are physicalists/materialists.



I'm confused. Isn't the physicalist/materialist view that consciousness is governed by electrochemical interactions between neurons in the brain? So when that goes *poof*, so does consciousness? Or is there a more elaborate theory of consciousness built from the foundations of quantized fields, so we're talking about QFT here in this thread to rule that out as well? (If so, what in QFT is causing consciousness that is not covered by neurons? I'm legitimately curious.)



Any "afterlife" that is not governed by physicalist assumptions, I guess? Again though, to my knowledge, there are no QFT papers that even discuss consciousness (and by extension, an "afterlife") so QFT doesn't even address questions in this realm.

If you are proposing some type of scientifically testable model for an "afterlife" that uses the tenets of QFT, I am all ears. Or if you want to show me someone, somewhere (anywhere), making this argument. Otherwise there is obviously no point in invoking QFT to refute a point no one is even making.



Our philosophical view of the universe is drastically different now due to quantum mechanics than before under Newtonian physics, even if we aren't personally affected by quarks and neutron stars. Model of reality does not equal reality.



I am not arguing for any new (specific) model, nor for an afterlife. Just pointing out how nonsensical it is to invoke QFT to "argue" against an afterlife when it is a question of consciousness which is a philosophical question first and a neuroscience question second (since neuroscience does not explicitly deal with the hard problem of consciousness).



What conclusions about consciousness can be drawn from QFT that cannot be drawn from neuroscience, under the assumptions of physicalism? People keep saying this but all I have seen are vague references to particles transmitting souls to heaven. Who is arguing for this mechanism?

If you actually did miss what other assumptions I outlined, the biggest one is "physicalism is absolutely true and has been shown to be true". Others being "model of reality = reality" (false, as anyone who has worked in a quantitative field knows) and maybe something else like "just because QFT makes very accurate predictions under certain energy scales does not mean it models everything". For a non-soul'sy example, try to use QFT to map a genotype in an organism to a phenotype.



Well, yes, but this only holds under the assumptions of physicalism. Which, AFAIK, no one who believes in an afterlife holds as true. My point is that it's ridiculous to invoke QFT in these discussions for any reason. And that it is clearly being used to try to bolster a position for no rational reason, and is also being used to try to sway an audience using technical jargon (OMG Physics!! Fields!!! Quantums!!!) when it doesn't apply, at all.

What else do you have?