Talk:Quantum mysticism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:35, 22 August 2009 editLikebox (talk \| contribs)6,376 edits →Sticking to the subject ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:46, 22 August 2009 edit undoLikebox (talk \| contribs)6,376 edits →Accusations of SYNTH Next edit →
Line 392:		Line 392:
	I think all of these accusations are caused by not reading "The Mind's I". The relevant article is a ''sequel'' to "Where Am I?" where there is a copy of the consciousness, and the copy diverges from the original because of a computer glitch. From this point on, the copy and the original are two separate consciousnesses, but there was only one before. This leads to trouble, because only one of them can control Dennett's body, and neither consciousness want its body to be passively controlled by the other.] (]) 04:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)		I think all of these accusations are caused by not reading "The Mind's I". The relevant article is a ''sequel'' to "Where Am I?" where there is a copy of the consciousness, and the copy diverges from the original because of a computer glitch. From this point on, the copy and the original are two separate consciousnesses, but there was only one before. This leads to trouble, because only one of them can control Dennett's body, and neither consciousness want its body to be passively controlled by the other.] (]) 04:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
	:I just read and it doesn't help your case. The "diverging copy" is actually from the end of "The Mind's I" by Dennett , I recommend you reread the article. As I stated above the thought experiment now in the article is SYNTH.--] (]) 05:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)		:I just read and it doesn't help your case. The "diverging copy" is actually from the end of "The Mind's I" by Dennett , I recommend you reread the article. As I stated above the thought experiment now in the article is SYNTH.--] (]) 05:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

			:: I quickly skimmed it--- you are right. The diverging copy has a "switch" (one bit of information) which is useless at first, but then diverges. This is the mysterious "bit" that you complain about. Dennett says explicitly "I don't know which one I am, Yorick or Hubert", which is paraphrased into "this bit is blah blah blah" in the article. Really, there is no new idea here. Honest.] (]) 04:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

	=== Summary of Complaints about Mind/Body Section ===		=== Summary of Complaints about Mind/Body Section ===

Revision as of 04:46, 22 August 2009

Paranormal Start‑class

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic / Religion / Eastern Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of religion
	Eastern philosophy

Archives

Archive 1 (March 2006 - June 2008)
Archive 2 (July - December 2008)

Worst article/irrelevant opinion/biased ideologies

This article is a tough one, because it is hard to explain why a physical theory should be thought of as mystical in any reasonably objective way. You always need a lengthy discussion of philosophy, with all the ambiguities and differences of opinion that such a discussion entails. Since not everyone thinks that QM is mystical, and even those that do disagree on exactly what mysticism means, and they don't even agree about what quantum mechanics means exactly, the discussion, no matter how it is written, is going to rub somebody the wrong way. Having said that, the article tries to give a reasonable summary, with some entry points into the physical literature on the subject. But there might be big gaps, and maybe its biased. It's really hard to write about this objectively.

It would be helpful for the critics to say exactly what is biased. The mystical stuff is really about measurement, and the mind/body problem identified by Wigner, and (in the opinion of some, perhaps partially) solved by Everett/decoherence.

But there is a lot of secondary literature which tries to make a connection between the quantum mechanics laws and self-help or mystical healing literature or ESP or some other such thing. This type of literature is not useful in trying to understand the physical issues, and it is not widely accepted. So I think that it should probably be left out, except perhaps for a list of sources for the reader interested in what ideas are being pushed by who.Likebox (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Research recommendation (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC) WORST ARTICLE/IRRELEVANT OPINION/BIASED IDEOLOGIES:

It is not difficult to write about or understand - all it takes is an open mind and some homework. You are approaching the subject from a non mystical view instead accurately portraying both. The page is heavily weighted toward the non mystical. May I remind the editors to read the title of this page once more - 'Quantum Mysticsim', should integrate both. Yet, Likebox says she likes to seperate philosophy from physics. That is not an objective 'objective', nor the point of this page. You really should cite additional sources for Mysticism other than Depok Chopra. Very limited. You should add something from world renowned scientist and philosopher Irvin Lazlo. Here is a small excerpt from his book 'Science and the Akashic Field' and I'll add a link to his organization The Club of Budapest. I'm sure Depok is acquainted with his work:

"Mystics and sages have long maintained that there exists an interconnecting cosmic field at the roots of reality that conserves and conveys information, a field known as the Akashic record. Recent discoveries in vacuum physics show that this Akashic Field is real and has its equivalent in science’s zero-point field that underlies space itself. This field consists of a subtle sea of fluctuating energies from which all things arise: atoms and galaxies, stars and planets, living beings, and even consciousness. This zero-point Akashic Field is the constant and enduring memory of the universe. It holds the record of all that has happened on Earth and in the cosmos and relates it to all that is yet to happen."

In Science and the Akashic Field, philosopher and scientist Ervin Laszlo conveys the essential element of this information field in language that is accessible and clear. From the world of science he confirms our deepest intuitions of the oneness of creation in the Integral Theory of Everything. We discover that, as philosopher William James stated, “We are like islands in the sea, separate on the surface but connected in the deep.”

Check out the reviews. You really should have Lazlo's work as part of the Quantum Mysticsm page.

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Akashic-Field-Integral-Everything/dp/1594770425

Here is Lazlo's orginaztion: The Club of Budapest. Not a page to link to here, but FYI:

http://www.clubofbudapest.org/

Please research Lazlo and add his work either as Further Reading or External link. I still would like to have Mystical Physicists added as Further Reading - but ONE editor panned it so it was not accepted. If your looking for important publishers or credentials - then you cannot refuse my Lazlo suggestion. A link to Mystical Physicists would be an important research addition. If the students at Berkley think enough of it to add to their bookstore, then it should be good enough for wiki. It is the wiki editors who appear to be limited. Research recommendation (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That I find the article wincingly biased toward the mystical side of things as you find it biased the other way, Research recommendation, suggests it has found a middle ground; although we're both a bit discomfited with it, we should probably be happy with it as it stands. Adambrowne666 (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't claim Irvin Lazlo's work is middle ground. What I said was this wiki page is heavily weighted toward the non mystical - and Lazlo's work would lend some much needed balance. I look forward to a final determination from the editors. Research recommendation (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are right about this article being biased against mysticism. Other readers who have a more scientific materialistic point of view have objected that this article is too charitable to the mystical point of view. The point of "separating physics from philosophy" is to separate min the physics literature from the philosophy literature. The philosophy literature was often written by people who didn't have a clue about quantum mechanics, and is often embarassing to read.Likebox (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong. The point of research into Quantum Mysticism is to INTEGRATE the two, not seperate them. You should be demonstrating how they are integrated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this article contains more information about seperating them.

Research recommendation (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lazlo's work INTEGRATES the two, so does Mystical Physcists. That's the balance I'm talking about - that is lacking on this page. Research recommendation (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I get it--- Lazlo is integrating mysticism with quantum mechanics. This page is just to discuss the history of the idea, and who wrote about it when. Lazlo is working now, I presume, and with less recognition, so it is less pressing to preserve his work.Likebox (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was referring to additons for the External Links and Further Reading categories. Lazlo's work is 2005. What the Bleep - 2004, and Lazlo's work is recognized at least as much as Michael Shermer's Quantum Quackery - 2005.

But with respect to history and the main body of the article - under the heading Observation and Quantum Mechanics, you really should include the 1982 work of Alain Aspect and the Bell test experiments (he set a precedent), yes/no? http://en.wikipedia.org/Bell_test_experiments

http://en.wikipedia.org/Alain_Aspect Research recommendation (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah--- Aspect probably should be there. But I don't know the experimental literature at all.Likebox (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of places that link through to the Bell Test Experiments in The Observations section - but it is obscured and you have to hunt for it. I think mentioning the Bell Test Experiments with a direct link within the body of this article is warranted. Aspect set a precedent - Bohm, Michael Talbot and several others based their work on his findings.

Research recommendation (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Metaphysics, not Science

Hi, I'm new to Misplaced Pages. There are already existing science articles (e.g. quantum mechanics. Is this not a metaphysical article? Shouldn't it be written with a lighter touch? Please discuss. Trelawnie (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation vs. Theory

There is no sharp demarcation between "fact" and "interpretation" in quantum mechanics. The only facts are that quantum mechanics gives you the probabilities of certain experimental outcomes, when the interaction of the experimental devices and the quantum system is particularly simple. When talking about how the perception of observers emerges in quantum theory, it's all philosophy. The rewrite made things less clear.

For example: the many worlds interpretation is not the most preferred by mystics, it is the least preferred. Mystics prefer Copenhagen interpretation, because it explicitly rejects describing observers with quantum mechanics. No source is needed for the obvious statement "the atoms of the brain do not stay the same", since all atoms enter and leave the body. The discussion of subtle points of consciousness is not improved by introducing the sentence "mystics believe" every once in a while, because non-mystics also need to answer the question of what consciousness is just as well, or leave it alone.

That means that the discussion is going to be completely philosophical, it can't be helped, hinging on the most annoying points of "what is my experience made of" and "how is this consciousness-stuff represented in quantum mechanics".

There are some very clear facts associated with quantum mechanics: Double-slit experiment, Hydrogen spectral series, and the time evolution of Bose–Einstein condensate are all facts and the Bohr model of the atom could be considered a stipulation. Its important to remember that all applications of modeling reality off a wave functions are extrapolated from hydrogen like atoms. Its not a fact that "wave functions spread into the world" its an interpretation of a sparse number of facts, readers should be reminded that there are many interpretation of quantum mechanics. Its very important to distinguish between "fact" and "interpretation" especially when describing QM's relationship to "mysticism".

The problem with the atoms and brain statement is not the idea that the atoms of the brain change.

"It has been suggested that the brain can't be explained though atoms since the atoms which constitute the brain do not stay the same."

The problem is that by changing a classical explanation based around atoms is in sufficient since they change location. This is similar to saying that classical mechanics is insufficient to explain the solar system because the planets move. Classical methods fail it both situation but not for the implied reasons. The sentence contains wp:synthesis I was giving the author an opportunity to attribute the sentence before I or another editor deletes the text.

As for the "mystic believe" qualifiers not everyone believes in philosophical zombie. But the bigger problem is whole premising of the hypothetical question in "Mind/body problem in Newtonian mechanics" includes a host of assumptions and is contextualized in a mystic belief system. For example the idea that consciousness is a "stream" is inane from my perspective I think of it as a temporal physical pattern, given the right tools and resources a pattern could be replicated an infinite number of times. But I would never add that to the text because that would be wp:synthesis so I qualified, through attribution, the verifiable text. Thats what I can say for now.--OMCV (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous--- that whole history section is the toughest thing to source, as is anything else on this subject. The issue is this--- quantum mechanics is not classical mechanics. It does not describe the positions of atoms. It describes wavefunctions. So even if you take the perspective the consciousness is the clockwork in the brain, that doesn't tell you what consciousness is in quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics does not describe clockwork. It describes wavefunctions.Likebox (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A Newtonian clockwork consciousness model does not need to meet the standards of QM, it only needs to meet its own standards which still allows atoms to exchange. If the classical model of mind and brain is failing by QM's standards the sentence needs to be rewritten and no matter what the sentence still needs citation. Furthermore if something is difficult to cite wp:verify odds are that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.--OMCV (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not impossible, just difficult to cite.Likebox (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said rewrite it so it makes sense and then cite it.--OMCV (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Consciousness Causes Collapse

This needs to be separated out from this article. This article should focus on mysticism and relations between mysticism and QM. CCC is just a straighforward add-on to Copenhagen, a half-way house between Copenhagen and full blown many-worlds. Many worlds can best be described as : consciousness seems to cause collapse from its own point of view.Likebox (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If the main CCC article is going to be Wigner's interpretation of quantum mechanics then Consciousness causes collapse should presumably redirect there, not here. 1Z (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph

The laws of quantum physics allow by calculation the prediction of observables, which can be tested in repeated experiments to a very high precision. This is a property shared with all other physical theories, but not with mystical beliefs. However, Ken Wilber asserts that meditation with the aim of experiencing higher consciousness may be regarded an experimental science (as it was and is regarded by some Buddhist sect.

This paragraph has no purpose except to misrepresent quantum mechanics as a mundane kind of physical theory, sort of like Newton's theory, except more precise and probalistic. That's not quantum mechanics. Nobody who knows quantum mechanics ever thinks of it that way.

Quantum mechanics does allow prediction of experimental outcomes after interpretation. The theory distinguishes between "measurements" and "physical processes", and this distinction is essential. A person is always performing measurements, and there is no obvious way of making sense out of the quantum state of a person. More generally, the entire classical world can only be extracted out of the theory itself by taking a many-worlds type interpretation. Otherwise, the theory is dualistic, just the same as mysticism.

Mysticism is not science, but the type of mysticism supported by quantum mechanics is of a very limited sort: it is just the statement that the consciousness-stuff is not reducible in an obvious way to material-stuff. The reason is that no classical-stuff is reducible in an obvious way to wavefunction-stuff. That separation is the entire content of quantum mysticism.Likebox (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A deterministic perspective is a very common interpretation of quantum mechanics. More importantly most researchers (regardless of their religious or mystical beliefs) treat quantum mechanics as a mathematical formalism when they work; which means they are agnostic to determinism or more likely assume some form of determinism as is the norm in all physical sciences. With that said I see know reason to keep the paragraph other than it being a well cited opinion of a quantum mystics, even if a lesser quantum mystics. Did you know that the double-slit experiment has been conducted with bucky balls (Arndt, M. et al. Nature 401, 680–682 (1999)). I don't think the double-slit experiment has been conducted with humans yet but it would be a reason experiment to conducted if we wanted to quantitatively measure how much our wave component contributed to our physical behavior.--OMCV (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a "deterministic perspective" in quantum mechanics? Do you mean many worlds? That's still subjectively probablistic.Likebox (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientists before they conduct experiments make the assumption that cause and event are linked through the material world, that some aspect of the world they are trying to understand is going to have intelligible deterministic behavior. Likebox you appear to be very hung up on theoretical perspectives and seem to have trouble distinguishing between QM models of reality and known experimental facts. Most of these perspectives over step their data otherwise their wouldn't be so many perspectives. As stated before we are going to have to do better to distinguish between "facts" and "interpretations".--OMCV (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "cause and effect are linked through the material world?" Do you mean that if you do something twice you get the same results? That's certainly wrong. Do you mean that if you do something twice you get the same probabilities? That's also incorrect, if you do certain experiments. Please don't impose your own pet philosophy on this article--- it is discussing subtle issues which are difficult to explain.Likebox (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm hardly describing a pet philosophy, its the operational philosophy of the vast majority of people working in scientific research stated in plain language. Its also off topic.--OMCV (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's a little off topic, but I want to know where you are coming from. If our discussion here is free enough, we might come to agree on a text by mutual understanding. So be patient, I am just core-dumping my POV, so that you can do the same, and we can compare our POV and see if it is possible to make the article pleasing to both of us.

The "science is about measurements" philosophy is so minimalistic, it suggests that science has absolutely nothing to say about consciousness or mysticism in any way. While this is a self-consistent point of view, and was held by Bohr, it is no secret that many people believe that a theory is about reality. So if you say that "electrons are fully described by wavefunctions", some will go further and say "electrons can be identified with wavefunctions". This was explicitly the point of view of Everett. It rejects the Bohr notion that science is just about explicitly described feasable measurements, and it incorporates the Wigner point of view that the rules of conscious perception is why we percieve collapse.

This point of view is not very sensible sounding to Bohr people, because they think of the wavefunction as somehow representing "information about the system", but the Bohr perspective is not self-evident. One reason is that the wavefunction is not a probability, so an "ignorance" interpretation makes it natural to ask "ignorance of what exactly?" a Bohrist would say it is ignorance of incompatible classical position and momentum, but a modern person would say "but position and momentum are fully quantum concepts, not classical ones. The classical ones are just approximations. And there are probably no hidden variables underneath to be ignorant of." Bohr would say "that's complementarity!" and so on.

Some people view the idea that the quantum description does not describe systems that include observers as mystical all by itself--- since it separates out the world of physics and the world of experience. Some people view the role of consciousness in CCC as mystical, because it separates out "experience" from "physical description". But it's always the same thing that people are pointing out as "mystical", and I wanted to explain what it is as clearly as possible.Likebox (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with the rewrite

Within Newtonian mechanics, the question of consciousness is not directly addressed since consciousness can not be directly measured and or quantified.

Yes, yes, we know, and everyone who reads this knows this. It is not useful to state the obvious.

Adaptation of a Newtonian mechanic perspective to explain the nature of consciousness suggests the content and function of a mind might be identified with the position and velocity of the atoms of the brain. Knowing the state of the atoms determines the future, so in a verificationalist sense it determines all measurable aspects of conscious behavior.

This is exactly what was said more pithily before. It is not useful to say "adaptation of a Newtonian mechanic perspective" instead of "In Newtonian mechanics", because that obfuscates the issue

Proponents of Quantum mysticism claim that even in a Newtonian universe, there are philosophical doubts about explain consciousness through the position and velocity of atoms.

Proponents of quantum mysticism do not specifically claim this. This is stuff that nobody disputes (as far as I know). This is an expository paragraph, designed to get the reader to the point where the explanations of mysticism in a physical theory can make sense. So it explains why you can't obviously point to a certain collection of atoms and say "that's my consciousness", because 1. what if the pattern moves into different atoms, like when atoms get replaced in the brain? And what if you copy the pattern into a duplicate, but keep the original, which way does the consciousness go subjectively? These two questions need to be asked to get the reader to understand the perspective of Everett. These questions are only raised by not answered, because if you haven't thought about these before, you aren't going to understand anything.

It has been suggested that the brain can't be explained though atoms since the atoms which constitute the brain do not stay the same. Individuals have put forward certain contrived thought experiments in which they claim the identity of mind and brain can become confused. For example, when a conscious Newtonian observer is duplicated, by copying all the relative positions and velocities of the observer's atoms. It is is argued that it is not obvious which way the stream of conscious experience for the observer will go but it assumed to go one way or both (but not duplicated). If the consciousness only goes one way, the duplicate will be left a philosophical zombie, without a consciousness of its own. But if the consciousness goes both ways, both observers start off with the same internal state, so that the subjective experience of the consciousness after the split requires extra information to describe. This information is what determines which path the consciousness will take. It has been argued that the value of this information is subjectively very important for the duplicated- since the information predicts the relative futures' of the duplicated pair - but this information is not contained in the relative positions and velocities of the observer's internal atoms.

This is OK, but overqualified. The Dennett stuff is classical, no QM, it just talks about copying consciousnesses. This is implicit in Everett too. It is not particularly mystical, and the "suggestion" is overly strong: the suggestion is not that the brain cannot be explained through atoms, the suggestion is that there is more information in the pattern of consciousness than what you can see in the position of the atoms. For example, which way a duplicated observer's consciousness "goes" is a bit of information like that.

The source for moving the brain pattern into a different system (a remote electronic machine in this case) was discussed by Dennett in "Where am I". This is the source for the statement "The atoms don't stay the same", but it is a loose paraphrase of ideas, as is the whole thing, frankly.Likebox (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The first section states how Newtonian Mechanics sees the world and I'm glad we agree its accurate but I disagree that it will be obvious to anyone who comes to this page. There is a great deal of misunderstandings of scientific philosophy that revolves around quantum mysticism and its best to be clear, especially when it takes a single sentence. In the next section "Adaptation of a Newtonian mechanic perspective to explain the nature of consciousness..." is stated the way it is because there has never been an experiment based in Newtonian physics conducted on the "nature of consciousness" this line of thought is extrapolation. If there was such research it would be worth citing here.

Proponents of Quantum mysticism claim that even in a Newtonian universe, there are philosophical doubts about explain(ing) consciousness through the position and velocity of atoms.

This sentence has been attributed to "Proponents of Quantum mysticism" because it is a disputable statement. Seriously the "Newtonian model" of the universe lacks a proper description of atoms, the whole idea pitting the two models against each other in this way is contrived and thus needs attribution. It seems the following hypothetical statements are primers for Everett's theories, or perhaps from Everett's works, and as such be attributed to Everett or purged as wp:synth. I've already stated that the hypothetical question is bad. The idea that our "stream of consciousness" is hiding in the subatomic activities of ground state atoms/molecules flies in the face of modern neuroscience which at no point invokes subatomic activity. Consider they whole hypothetical question in need of citation or deletion. Paraphrasing even if its loose should be attributed and if its too loose its wp:synth.--OMCV (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's only SYNTH if people who aren't familiar with the ideas think it is. Everyone knows that there is nothing original about these ideas--- they have been kicking around for 60 years. The statement that there are "philsoophical doubts about explaining all the contents of consciousness through positions of atoms" is not debatable--- the doubts exist. Whether they are justified or not is another story.

To explain these doubts--- if someone makes a copy of you, and puts the copy in Antarctica--- do you feel that you are still where you are, or that you are teleported to Antarctica? What if it is the original that is moved very very quickly to Antarctica, while the copy is left here? What if the atoms are split between you and copy half/half.

The question of consciousness is where you feel yourself to be. This is a different question than where the atoms actually are.Likebox (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If its been around for 60 years it should be very easy to cite as it is I've deleted it as OR. Someone who understands QM would realize that two observers whose atoms relative positions and relative velocities are identical would be identical. They would also realize that the situation of identical observers could theoretically never be achieved because of the uncertainty principle even if all the practical difficulties are ignored.

The vast majority of biochemical activity contributing to all of life can be explained without QM. There are two exception that I know of, quantum tunneling must be invoked to explain the reaction rates of H+ and e-. All heavier atoms are well explained through classical chemical kinetics. Subatomic states play no known role in consciousness for example the magnetic alignment of nuclei that occurs in an MRI machine has not been demonstrated to the biological activity of anything. It seems the contrived hypothetical question concerning the twin observers, the stream of consciousness, and their "feelings" is Likebox's OR as such its been deleted.--OMCV (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is well cited--- it is in Dennett and Hofstadter. The sentence you give "Someone who understands QM would realize that two observers whose atoms relative positions and relative velocities are identical would be identical" shows that you do not understand QM at all, and should not edit this article.Likebox (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by that cryptic statement above is that it is impossible to even imagine that two observers' atoms have a definite position and definite momentum. It is not allowed in QM, even hypothetically. You can't view the uncertainty principle as a limitation to measuring the position and momentum (but they exist anyway secretly inside). That's a completely wrong point of view.

Your hypothetical unknown simultaneous position and momentum would be local hidden variables, and would violate Bell's inequality. They would not obey Newton's laws, and they would have to be in constant communication faster than the speed of light. This type of misunderstanding is not shared by ANY quantum mechanics practitioner, and it is serious enough error for me to ask you to please get a better understanding for quantum mechanics before mucking around with this article.Likebox (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If "it is impossible to even imagine that two observers' atoms have a definite position and definite momentum" than the hypothetical needs to be restated. I was thinking well within the ridiculous hypothetical to say that two observers with identical atoms and velocities are identical, I never said that they would stay identical, its best not to make to many interpretations your bound to get something wrong.--OMCV (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The hypothetical is a pure hypothetical, in Newtonian mechanics. It imagines that you make a clone of a classical observer, and the clone then goes off and does other things. But at the instant that the clone is made, it has the same relative (classical) positions and velocities. This thought experiment assumes the world is classical, and that a classical world could include conscious beings just like ourselves. This might not be clear enough in the article.

In quantum mechanics, there is no analogous copying, because you can't precisely duplicate a quantum state. But the analogous thing in QM is just a macroscopic superposition itself. In Everett's view, an observer in a superposition "feels" unsuperposed. This is the main point, echoed in Wigner's consciousness causes collapse article.Likebox (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a hypothetical! You say it not possible to "precisely duplicate a quantum state" well in classical mechanics its not possible precisely position a collection of atoms and the classical mechanics doesn't even have the Bohr model. What I think you real mean is that quantum states spread infinitely so internal states can't be distinguished from external states thus the idea of duplicating internally relative state is a fallacy. I'm fine with that. Then again that assumes a quantum state at infinity is relevant. In the practical application of quantum mechanics, "Matter" has a very localized wave function and the influence of more distant aspects of these wave functions are considered inconsequential for everyone but mystics. That's why delocalizing matter in a Bose–Einstein condensate was such a big deal.--OMCV (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) I think you are confusing "quantum mysticism" with the unrelated idea that Quantum Mechanics has something to do with the functioning of the brain and consciousness itelf. Those two ideas have nothing to do with one another.

"Quantum mysticism" is an interpretation of the fact that the laws of quantum mechanics make reference to an observer, and that these references are unavoidable, unlike in classical mechanics.

The idea that quantum effects or tunneling have to do with the functioning of the brain is a completely separate idea with very little support. This is called "quantum consciounsness" or something.

Quantum mechanics is still mystical even if you view the mind as clockwork. The reason is that quantum mechanics does not describe clockwork, it describes clockwork in superposition.Likebox (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Also from reading your comment again, you seem to suggest that objects in the classical limit have "tight" compressed wavefunctions which lump around the classical position and momentum. This is incorrect. It is correct for the part of the wavefunction which describes the relative state, meaning the relative positions and momentum of the different interacting particles, but the overall state of a system will always end up in a gross superposition of macroscopically different possibilities. This doesn't require a sophisticated Bose-Einstein condensate, it's just Schrodinger's cat.Likebox (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

First, Schrodinger's cat is intended to illustrate difference in interpretations. The thought experiment would have very little meaning without actual experimental evidence of quantum mechanic phenomenon like the double-slit experiments. Its backwards to say that Schrodinger's cat is evidence of phenomenon. Second this line of exchange is hopelessly off topic and I won't respond here again.--OMCV (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the edits in the next section are no good

Unlike classical mechanics, in quantum mechanics, there is no naive way of identifying the true state of the world or its components such as observers. The state of all parts of reality is believed to be measurably indefinite as described by the uncertainty principle.

This is not just about the uncertainty principle. It is about the wavefunction. Using the uncertainty principle in this context can make it sound like there is a secret hidden variable underneath.

The implications of this finding on the nature of reality is unclear since there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) the wavefunction, that describes matter and energy, spreads out describing an ever larger superposition of different worlds. In this interpretation an observer observing a superposition can be described by a superposition of different observers seeing different things, but in actual experience, an observer never feels a superposition, but always feels that one of the outcomes has occurred with certainty. This apparent conflict between a wavefunction description and classical experience is called the problem of observation. The founders of quantum mechanics each interpreted the theory and associated assumptions different, each interpretation has different implications on an observer and their relationship to the world.

This is pretty much OK, but it is equivalent to what was there before. I don't understand these nitpicking rewrites. If you aren't going to change the content at all, why make it sound worse?Likebox (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a need to distinguish between undisputed "facts" and "interpretations" or "models". I don't dispute the statements listed above have been made, they just need to be attributed and cited. Thats what all my edits have been about.--OMCV (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the sources already there? If you do, then I think you will be satisfied that there is no original thought in the whole section.Likebox (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

To quote Wigners conclusions on his own paper:

"The present writer is well aware of the fact that he is not the first one to discuss the questions which form the subject of this article and that the surmises of his predecessors were either found to be wrong or unprovable, hence, in the long run, uninteresting. He would not be greatly surprised if the present article share the fate of those of his predecessors."

I'm not overly worried that these ideas are OR, I'm worried that ideas are being stated as undisputed facts when they are interpretations that need to be attributed to an individual or a school of thought.--OMCV (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that nothing here is stated as fact, that is a surprising assertion. To say "there are philosophical doubts" is not the same as saying "this is true", or "this is false". It just says people have raised doubts (they have).Likebox (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets say you heard someone say that they thought my sister could be a slut. I still want this non-fact cited and attributed. But thats not what the problem is the version I edited stated to the effect that "quantum mechanics states this", I changed it to "an interpretation of quantum mechanics states this". There is a big difference in one quantum mechanics is treated as a single entity, I would be fine with that if you where dealing with things a mathematical formalism. Instead you are invoking ideas almost whole derived from an interpretation of quantum mechanics completely unrelated to the mathematical formalism and its supporting experimental evidence.--OMCV (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) I agree that there is some justification necessary for the emphasis on many-worlds in this section. I believe this is justified, because the many-worlds article came somewhat before Wigner's article on consciousness, and some have suggested that it inspired Wigner's article. Wigner's point of view directly inspired some of the quantum mysticism, but Schrodinger's point of view also was somewhat similar, and everyone was aware of the pitfalls of describing an observer using quantum theory.

The many-worlds literature is the historical source for nearly all modern interpretations of QM. The interesting part is that Everett's point of view has also been influential in the philosophy of mind, through the work of Dennett and Hofstadter. That's because the mind-subtleties that arise in many-worlds can be made to arise in any mechanistic theory of consciousness. So I think the emphasis is appropriate.

But the main issue of what quantum mechanics says and so on is pretty much without dispute, and independent of intepretational details, so I didn't bother to qualify it. Maybe you could be more specific about what statements are underqualified.Likebox (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Cites for Mind/Body Problem in Classical Mechanics

All the philosophy there is contained in great detail in the articles by Dennett from the late 70's early 80's, and reprinted and expanded upon in the Hofstadter/Dennett book cited. To be clear: there is no quantum mechanics in what Dennett and Hofstadter discuss, it's all about representing consciousness as a pattern in atoms, but the ideas are certainly inspired by Many Worlds interpretation.

Please do not make this section less clear: the statement that is made is that which way you "feel" yourself to go when your atoms are duplicated is an extra bit of information which is not present before the split, but is present after. This bit is apparent to you, as a subjective observer, but it has no objective meaning inside the atoms, because your consciousness goes both ways. This point is a little subtle, and I ask you to understand it before editing the section. The wording needs to be clear that it is exactly one bit that is not present in the atoms. Not "extra information" or "some claim that there is extra information". It is exactly one bit, and no more.

This extra bits is the "world selection" in many worlds, or equivalently the "results of past measurements" in some variants of Copenhagen, or with the "outcome of the consciousness collapse" in CCC, or with the "actually realized histories" in decoherent histories, or any other of the equivalent up-to-philosophy intepretations. The role of consciousness here in making the world appear as it is is similar to the role of consciousness in making time "go forward" subjectively. The feeling of time "going forward" is not obviously derivable from physical law, because it is a perceptual property, not a physical property. It is obviously related to entropy production, but exactly how is hard to say. Similarly, the feeling of "probabilistic measurements" is a subjective feeling in many-worlds, and an additional axiom associated with observers in standard Copenhagen style interpretations.Likebox (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For the hypothetical question its not good enough to say the philosophy is out there in papers for the 70's and 80's. Please cite and attribute the hypothetical question plainly so that I and other editors can verify that it isn't a hypothetical of your own creation. Its troubling that "The wording needs to be clear that it is exactly one bit that is not present in the atoms." Does it need to be so exact because its quoted or does it need to be so exact because its your personal idea that needs to be protected. The idea that there is one bit connected to: "world selection", "results of past measurements", "outcome of the consciousness collapse", and "actually realized histories" needs to attributed and cited as well as the idea that those are equivalent concepts . This is not a forum for individuals to present their own thoughts stick to what can be cited. For now the offending section has been deleted.--OMCV (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This hypothetical question is the SUBJECT of the book, "The Minds' I". It is also the subject of the articles I quoted here, and Hofstadter, who is an author on The Mind's I, makes no bones about the link to many-worlds.Likebox (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(moved from OMCV's talk page)::: About "Citing a whole book" please look at it: the book contains a lot of articles that discuss thought experiments like the copying of an observer. The articles are very long-winded, because they are written to convince a skeptic, but you can just skim them (although they are pleasant to read). The original article is (I think--- I haven't read this in years) "where am I" by Dennett, and "Who am I?" (a sequel). I think they are both reprinted there, with extra commentary. The many-worlds article by Hofstadter is reprinted in "Metamagical Themas" (I am pretty sure). I didn't cite a particular page, because the thought experiment I wrote about is a very condensed summary of "Where am I". That is written as a fable about someone whose consciousness is copied into circuits (if my memory serves me right). I really don't mind if you change stuff here, but please read this literature first. Dennett is a very non-mystical philosopher of consciousness.Likebox (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

First this talk page is the place to respond to my specific concerns about the article. Second this clearly demonstrates that the "hypothetical question" is of Likeboxes' own invention. If it was adapted from a "fable about someone whose consciousness is copied into circuit" than there has been significant WP:Synth since at no point does it mention circuitry. His ownership issues over the language are also disconcerting. If the "hypothetical question" needs to be deleted until it can be specifically cited and attributed and Likebox's personal thoughts don't qualify as "WP:RS".--OMCV (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at where am i very briefly and you might as well be citing the gholas of the Dune series or something by Williams Gibson. I understand that Dennett is a prominent philosopher and I'll look at the piece and see if it can be paraphrased and attributed. This is generous of me since the burden of citation is not on the editor you challenges the material but the editor that adds it. I expect the hypothetical question to remain deleted until it is correctly cited.--OMCV (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You are supposed to use your common sense. There is an entire book devoted to copying consciousness, an article about copying consciousness, a decade of philosophical discourse about the copying of consciousness, and I paraphrase this old 80s discussion here. I do NOT say that Dennett is the only source, there are others, the particular example might not occur in the exact same words, but that's not the point. Anyone can see that its the exact same idea, perhaps illustrated differently (although I think the duplication example is given too in "Where am I" or one of the later articles in the book).Likebox (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) About "ownership": the reason I object to the rewrite is because the rewrite suggested in the subtext that there is a deterministic point of view, where quantum mechanics is just an uncertainty, or ignorance, on top of what is basically classical mechanics. This makes quantum mysticism into gibberish, because the mysticism comes out of realizing that the quantum uncertainty is not like a classical probability. If it's not a probability, how come if "FEELS" like one? There's the mysticism.

This type of mistake made me queasy about the rest of the rewrite. It wasn't terrible, though.Likebox (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Clean up refs from above

Wilber Ken A Brief History of Everything, 1st ed. 1996, 2nd ed. 2001: ISBN 1-57062-740-1
Wilber, Ken Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists (editor), 1984, rev. ed. 2001: ISBN 1-57062-768-1
For example, Wigner states in "Remarks on the mind body question":"Until not many years ago, the "existence" of a mind or soul would have been passionately denied by most physical scientists. The brilliant successes of mechanistic and, more generally, macroscopic physics and of chemistry overshadowed the obvious fact that thoughts, desires, and emotions are not made of matter, and it was nearly universally accepted among physical scientists that there is nothing beside matter. The epistome of this belief was the conviction that, if we knew the positions and velocities of all atoms at one instant of time, we could compute the fate of the universe for all future"
Dennett, Daniel C. (2001-01). The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self & Soul. Basic Books. ISBN 0465030912. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Picking apart this rewrite

What's wrong with this rewrite (in addition to the obvious fact that it deleted Dennett/Hofstadter, which was the only point of the section)

Mind/Body problem in Newtonian mechanics

Newtonian mechanics has historically been associated with the assumption that the world could be observed consistently from any vantage point, a strong concept of determinism, reductionism, and positivism. These philosophies, in their most extreme form, lead to the belief that given the positions and velocities of all atoms at one instant of time, we could compute the fate of the universe for all future times. When various forms of these beliefs are applied to consciousness and the mind-body problem the result is physicalistic monisms such as eliminative materialism.

The development of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics both elevated and limited the role of the "observer" in philosophically significant ways. The uncertainty principle relationship to the observer also placed theoretical limits on what could potentially be "known" about physical matter. The development of these theories lead to a critical reevaluation of the beliefs through which physics is contextualized and experimental results are interpreted. This reevaluation ultimately lead to the destabilization and speciation of physic's dominant philosophical context. The role and importance of determinism differed greatly between the various interpretations of quantum mechanics. This diverse environment provided fertile ground for the development of mystical interpretations and mystical extensions to the material interpretation of quantum mechanics both by professional scientists and mystics.

^ Wigner, Eugene (1967-12). "Symmetries and Reflections, Scientific Essays". American Journal of Physics. 35 (12): 1169–1170. doi:10.1119/1.1973829. Retrieved 2009-07-30. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Haeckel, Ernst Heinrich Philip (1992). The Riddle of the Universe. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879757469, 9780879757465. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
Zukav, Gary (2001-08-01). Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics. HarperOne. ISBN 0060959681.

What's wrong with this paragraph: a bunch of things.

Logical positivism is NOT associated with Newtonian mechanics, and never was. It is associated with relativity and quantum mechanics. It was developed partly as a challenge to the metaphysical concept of absolute space and time which underly Newton's mechanics.
"These philosophies, in their most extreme form... (lead to determinism)" That's absolutely false. Newton's mechanics in its most obvious form leads to the theorem that if you know the present position and momentum (and if the force law is sufficiently regular) then you know the future. This was said explicitly in a famous quote by Laplace, and was echoed for 300 years. It is also mathematically true. The previous text just takes it for granted (and assumes you understand it).
"Relativity and quantum mechanics ... elevated the observer..." this is bullshit. Relativity did not elevate the observer much more than Newtonian mechanics. In the final reckoning, the theory of relativity describes a reality which is independent of the observer just like any other classical theory, but whose most natural description in terms of time-slices depends on the observer's state of motion. Quantum mechanics was always completely different. It requires the act of observation even to define the primitive concepts in the theory, like the wavefunction. This distinction is absolutely essential. Nobody would ever talk about "Relativistic mysticism", and relativity is not a particularly positivist theory.
"The uncertainty principle placed a limit on what could be known..." This statement shows profound ignorance of quantum mechanics. The uncertainty principle is not a limit on what "can be known", it is a limit on simultaneous measurement of position and momentum, for the simple reason that a quantum description does not have a simultaneous position and momentum. It is misleading to state it as a limitation on our knowledge, because it is not clear "knowledge of what, exactly?"
This sentence "The development of these theories lead to a critical reevaluation of the beliefs through which physics is contextualized and experimental results are interpreted. This reevaluation ultimately lead to the destabilization and speciation of physic's dominant philosophical context." sounds like it was written by an illiterate. Do not use big words for no reason: you could say the exact same thing like this "When these theories came along, they turned physical philosophy upside down", which is much more readable. Big words == Dumb people.

I restored the previous text. If you are going to change the text, at least make a minor effort to write readably, without pompous big words.Likebox (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, aside from the relatively trivial style issues (that's a pet peeve, sorry), the rest of the points I made above are not very convincing:

I understand why you said positivism now--- you mean predicting the behavior of a mind is the same as understanding consciousness. This also takes care of point 2. I put that back in the merge.
I fixed the Dennett stuff to be clearer.
The relativity business, while not mystical, did involve one point which was positivist. Time seems to "go forward" in Newtonian mechanics, but not in relativity. This point was lost on me when I wrote the above comment. Go figure. I still think it's a little out of the way to mention it.
The uncertainty principle is certainly not the right way to say it--- I stand by this one.
I also stand by the style issue, but it's not very important.

Hopefully the merge made it clearer. Perhaps it is also possible to ease your doubts about the Dennett stuff (he really does discuss copying consciousness in the Mind's I--- it's in there. Two minds (one a backup copy) diverge after a glitch, and then the backup copy becomes hopelessly unhappy).Likebox (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sticking to the subject

This is getting ridiculous. Please read WP:synth. The section on Dennett/Hofstadter contains substantial synth and there has been no compelling argument to the contrary.

The section on Dennett/Hofstadter is connected to Dennett/Hofstadter perspective on the Mind/Body problem but nothing directly connects it to the "Mind/Body problem in Newtonian mechanics".
There is a huge amount of work associated with the Mind/Body that could be connected to "Newtonian mechanics". Focusing on the work of Dennett/Hofstadter in detail is disproportionate.
As it stand this Dennett/Hofstadter section does not fairly represent what could be described as the "Mind/Body problem in Newtonian mechanics" but rather provides a venue to for an editor to imply that aspects of Newtonian mechanics foreshadowed quantum mysticism.
This is not the section to discuss the many-worlds interpretation or Copenhagen interpretation as it doesn't relate to "Mind/Body problem in Newtonian mechanics".
"The atoms which make up the brain get replaced, but the information gets copied into new atoms." This statement is just poorly thought out. Its meaning is entirely unclear as is its connection to Newtonian mechanics. I expect that this is inspired form the transcript of Feynman's speech the "Value of Science". This idea was presented well after well after the introduction of quantum mechanics and Feynman clearly explains how he relates consciousness to the fact that "The radioactive phosphorus content of the cerebrum of a the rate decreases to one-half in a period of two weeks." . (Still Feynman was some what misrepresenting the study since it was probably concerned with the uses and exchanges ATP, the brains fuel and not its structure. Its akin to saying the fuel I have in my car today is not the same as the fuel I had in my car yesterday yet it is still my car.)

Of these concerns I'm most worried about (3) and (1) their relationship to WP:synth and the possibility that these are not unique edits but indicative of a more pervasive misrepresentation of material. I've attempted to offer reasonable arguments and they seem to have failed. As I see it the next step is some form of arbitration. I've never initiated arbitration and have no desire to do so but it seems this situation may demand a third party, I hope you see share my views on this Likebox.--OMCV (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I read that Feynman thing, but I may have. It certainly isn't the inspiration for the changing atoms. That's just to make sure that people understand that copying the information in the brain to new atoms is a normal thing, because that's the only process that Dennett uses to make the intuitive paradoxes in his fables.

While I agree that there is a huge literature on consciousness in philosophy, all of it is useless for this article, because it is not informed by the quantum thinking. Dennett's paradoxes are essentially the same type of effects which are naturally suggested by the many-worlds interpretation, and so they help explain the relationship of consciousness and intepretation of QM. It is possible that Dennett was directly inspired by many-worlds (although there is no source for this assertion).

There is no synth. The ideas stated in this article are those of Dennett and Hofstadter, with next to no alteration. I used my own language, but the ideas are not original. These ideas are not quantum mechanical, they are classical by default (the machines which Dennett refers to never involve any quantum mechanics). In this article, that fact needs to be emphasized. That's why I wrote in "Newtonian" mechanics. It really doesn't have to be newtonian, you could retitle the section "Mind/Body problem with a deterministic brain".

The classical problem (informed by Dennett) makes the quantum paradoxes clearer. There is no other work in philosophy of mind that I know of which is at all related to quantum mechanical perspectives. While I agree that some editorial judgement has been used to select which philosophy and physics articles are relevant, that is not SYNTH, that's writing an article. If you have other sources you think should be added, there's plenty of room.Likebox (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The section titled "Mind/Body problem in Newtonian mechanics" should not be informed by quantum thinking.

Dennett's story deals with the speed of light, electronics, radio waves, and many other things which are not described by any "Newtonian" model. Newtonian physics (classical physics) is a model of reality whose relevance is limited to the translational motion of large objects (generally atoms or bigger) moving slowly (well below the speed of light) in the observers frame of reference. There is the cultural concept of "Newtonian Physics" which is tied to the philosophical idea of a clock-work universe, the idea of a perfectly accessible determinism. This idea should be described in its own terms and not through a quantum thinking informed filter.

The ideas of Dennett are distinctly different from the thought experiment in the article. The concept of "consciousness stream" and a "single bit of information" is not contained in DENNETT's Where Am I?, these two ideas need to be cited and attributed if they are going to be included without dispute.

"The classical problem (informed by Dennett) makes the quantum paradoxes clearer." The classical system presented authentically had no use or knowledge of quantum paradoxes. Researchers ignored any philosophical concern that could resemble a quantum paradox until the discovery of specific phenomenon such as spectral lines. As it stands now the section should be titled "Mind/Body problem as perceived by physicalist in the opinion of Dennet". But then again, Dennet's work came well after the development of quantum mechanics and as its written now the article doesn't represent Dennet's ideas.--OMCV (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the Mind's I website. The original "Where Am I" contains the copying procedure, "Hubert" is the computational copy. The idea that there is a way for a consciousness to go when it is duplicated is contained in this work. The stuff you are complaining about, the "bit of information", etc, is so trivial and obvious, I think it is silly to argue about.Likebox (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of SYNTH

I think all of these accusations are caused by not reading "The Mind's I". The relevant article is a sequel to "Where Am I?" where there is a copy of the consciousness, and the copy diverges from the original because of a computer glitch. From this point on, the copy and the original are two separate consciousnesses, but there was only one before. This leads to trouble, because only one of them can control Dennett's body, and neither consciousness want its body to be passively controlled by the other.Likebox (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I just read Where was I? and it doesn't help your case. The "diverging copy" is actually from the end of "The Mind's I" by Dennett , I recommend you reread the article. As I stated above the thought experiment now in the article is SYNTH.--OMCV (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I quickly skimmed it--- you are right. The diverging copy has a "switch" (one bit of information) which is useless at first, but then diverges. This is the mysterious "bit" that you complain about. Dennett says explicitly "I don't know which one I am, Yorick or Hubert", which is paraphrased into "this bit is blah blah blah" in the article. Really, there is no new idea here. Honest.Likebox (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Complaints about Mind/Body Section

Perhaps the title of the section should be "Mind body problem disregarding quantum mechanics" instead of "Mind body problem in Newtonian mechanics. But since "Newtonian mechanics" is just a stand-in for "what people normally think of as physical law", the change would only be slight.

The point of the Dennett experiments is to show how different the mind can be from the material property of the brain. This discussion came after the analogous discussion in quantum mechanics, so you can't say it's not derived from this.Likebox (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories: