Does anyone have an actual refutation of stuff like quantum consciousness and other stuff these Noetic Science people push?
Everyone that I ask just gives me the whole "its woo even though i dont know shit lol" routine, and it's retarded. It's almost as if "woo" has become a new meme, so I'm just betting it hasn't reached Veeky Forums (yet)
Noetics IS woo, notice how almost every important physicist was/is an atheist?
Eli Rivera
>notice how almost every important physicist was/is an atheist?
Actually the majority of important physicists have not called themselves atheists.
>Newton >Einstein >Maxwell
Jonathan Martinez
so does the existence of christian scientists prove noetics isnt woo, you daft little shit?
Henry Bailey
...
Easton Reyes
The way science works is that you propose an idea then test it rigorously, only then will it be accepted as a workable idea within a particular field. Quantum Consciousness is a hypothesis at best and there isnt any experiments which wholly or satisfactorily support it. Thus the burden is still on those who suggest its existence, not on others to prove it wrong. There isnt anything of substance to argue against unless we live purely in the realm of philosophy, which scientists dont. Maybe mathematicians.
Connor Perry
>Does anyone have an actual refutation of stuff like quantum consciousness
>We find that the decoherence timescale s ( ∼ 10 −13 − 10 −20 seconds) are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical timescales ( ∼ 10 − 3 − 10 − 1 seconds), both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.
You are only allowed to honestly believe in "quantum consciousness" if you also don't believe consciousness has anything to do with neuronal firing, because Tegmark established they will fire exactly the same way as predicted by classical physics regardless of any quantum effects that happens in proximity to them. The timescales for decoherence aren't anywhere near long enough to let them influence neuronal firing.
Backing away from the science argument against it, the common sense argument against it is it's clearly the product of new agey shitheads trying to explain one ostensibly "mysterious" phenomenon ("consciousness") in terms of another ostensibly "mysterious" field of science. It's exactly the wrong place to look for answers for the topic of "consciousness," which is properly understood as an issue of language, abstraction, and behavior, not some fundamental physical force of nature. It's "mysterious" because the brain deals in illusion, making you think you're "experiencing" all these vivid details you actually aren't experiencing at all on closer inspection (e.g. there have been experiments where you walk the subjects through an "imagination" task and then ask them about little details of the object or scenery they were told to imagine only to find out they don't have the answers because their "imagination" was really just their brain saying "you're imagining X."
I believe there was some response to Tegmark's paper. I don't know if he addressed the previous paper, but Tegmark also suggest that consciousness may be a state of matter
As with the New Age stuff, as far as I know, some pieces of "quantum x" have been thought up originally by scientists (ex. Institute of Noetic Sciences), but they have the unfortunate event of having shit stains like Chopra using their ideas for bullshit book deals
If it wasn't for New Age faggots, I feel like there would be more discussion without the whole "im right because im skeptic" snarkiness, whether for or against it, since anything that the New Age attaches to seems to look less serious than what its trying to be
Lincoln Turner
>Tegmark also suggest that consciousness may be a state of matter What the fuck?
Ethan Adams
So you're telling me there's 5- important physicists?
but good point desu
Tyler Murphy
yep, at 310.5K objects attain sentience
Jeremiah Ward
>You are only allowed to honestly believe in "quantum consciousness" if you also don't believe consciousness has anything to do with neuronal firing What if consciousness is a property of a non-corporeal soul in which neuronal firing causes qualia (physical -> mental) and free will is expressed through non-random (only appearing random when people are indifferent) collapse of the wavefunction (mental -> physical)? What if souls have existed for time eternal, and brains are merely adaptations to them, and don't have anywhere near the computing power attributed to them?
Ryan Parker
>non-coporeal >soul >qualia >free will >collapse of the wavefunction
WEWWWWWWWWWW
Thomas Sanchez
>abloobloo I'll assume people who actually walked the walk don't know shit because that discards any responsibility from me If you want to know about QM, take your fingers out of your asshole, get to the closest library, borrow a QM textbook and work through it. Don't be surprised people won't prove anything to you through a fucking Veeky Forums post.
Also learn to differentiate the times where you are asking someone about something, and the time when you are debating them. It's a useful skill. No you can't do both at once. Yes, it's obvious you're underage.
Einstein >… It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Are you going to demonstrate that or are you going to keep making baseless assertions?
Nathaniel Scott
>still posting because he's too much of a brainlet to read the Yu and Nikolic paper.
Lincoln Brooks
>Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness That is a well-known correct statement. It does not refute which suggests conscious involvement in quantum mechanics only as a possibility, not something quantum mechanics necessarily implies.
Kevin Roberts
>he only read the title fucking brainlet
Easton Campbell
> solution is to read an entire textbook
Speaking of underage.....
Brody Evans
>It has been suggested that consciousness plays an important role in quantum mechanics as it is necessary for the collapse of wave function during the measurement. Here we formulated several predictions that follow from this hypothetical relationship and that can be empirically tested. Looks like a crackpot paper.
David Perry
>woaw why do I have to know quantum physics to have opinions about quantum physics, so unfair!
>he only read the abstract brainlet squared
Leo Johnson
I'm reading further to find the error, but given that it states something blatantly wrong in the abstract, we know it's a crackpot paper.
Josiah Ortiz
> Man, I'm way too smart to be spending time talking about science on a science subforum
Ryan Gray
>Man, I'm way too smart to learn about something before arguing about it
Alexander Lee
Yep, this is a crackpot paper. Their proposed setup will not produce an interference pattern under any conditions.
Someone seems to have pointed that out to them, as they mention in a footnote: >Interference pattern is not necessarily obvious from the entire distribution. So proper separation of sub-populations of registered photons may be needed "May" be needed. For fuck's sake. You can tell these people don't actually know any QM. Yes, it is needed, and in the delayed-choice quantum eraser paper they cite, it depends on erasing the which-way information and measuring a complementary variable. Which they don't do, and can't do in their setup because they need a human to look/not look at the which-way data.
Parker Long
seems like quantum physics cant explain your damage control kiddo
Christopher Garcia
> Man, I'm way too smart to understand that usually, people who have questions on topic A ask those questions because they have no knowledge of topic A
Also nobody is arguing about it, you just came in here with a cactus up your ass to shit up the thread with trying to start an argument. Either contribute, or don't bitch when someone calls you out on your bullshit
Jack Bailey
Read the entire paper. It does produce interference if you align the two idler channels perfectly. Sorry, guess you just aren't that clever.
Asking about a topic isn't arguing about it. Again, learn to differentiate the two, it's a skill every adult is supposed to have learned.
Robert Ross
Of course i cant. For this i have to be in your brainlet bubble to even understand every pseudoscience statement.
Parker Jackson
You mean the citation of journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.318 ? That's another setup different from their proposed one. It also differs from the crackpots' setup in that it's in principle impossible to get the which-way information under the circumstances which produce the interference pattern is produced. There's no way to make a setup like the one the crackpots have proposed work. They don't know any physics, and seem to be trying to reason by analogy.
Leo Ross
>under the circumstances which produce the interference pattern is produced *under the circumstances which produce the interference pattern
Ian Martinez
>That's another setup different from their proposed one they're pretty much equivalent and you could align the idlers with very little additions
The point is to show you it's separation that prevents interference patterns, not fucking consciousness or measurement.
Aaron James
>they're pretty much equivalent and you could align the idlers with very little additions You emphatically cannot align the idlers in the same way as in after the fact unless you have some sort of magical entropy-destroying device. What you can do is combine them with a beam splitter, which will give you two beams out. That is what is done in the normal delayed-choice quantum eraser setup.
In any case, it wouldn't help you because if you destroy the which-way information properly, there is nowhere to put an observer.
Sebastian Phillips
>The point is to show you it's separation that prevents interference patterns, not fucking consciousness or measurement. The crackpot paper proves nothing about consciousness. Taking an experiment that is not expected to produce an interference pattern -- even if no wavefunction collapse takes place (except perhaps when you measure the interference pattern) -- and pretending it proves that it's not consciousness that collapses the wavefunction is as stupid as shining a flashlight on the wall and pretending the fact that I don't see interference fringes proves the same thing.
Andrew Reed
>… It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. That sounds like agnosticism to me
David Cox
>muddying terms in order to make your point He's an agnostic atheist. Still an atheist. Fucking christcucks. No sense of intellectual integrity.
Jose Lewis
Agnostic atheist =/= atheist
It just means he didn't really know but he leaned TOWARDS atheism, he wasn't a complete atheist.
Wyatt Long
>an atheist isn't an atheist whatever you say, cuck
>he wasn't a complete atheist. That doesn't mean anything either you believe or you don't. Statements about the knowability of God are another matter.
In any case, no you can't claim Einstein as a believe you disingenuous idiot. Go to a board where people are more ready to accept your "redpill" or whatever your call your inaccurate cliches.
Jacob Taylor
Are you a fucking retard?
Agnostic atheist =/=pure atheist
Do I need to write that on a canvas with shit for you to understand that?
Parker Young
>pure atheist that doesn't mean anything and you're just moving goalposts as you go along
Adrian White
Dude your retarded. There isn't a fucking purity with atheism you either have a belief in a personal god/deistic god or you fucking dont
Most atheists if not all are agnostic atheists.
The other dude is right
Jack Smith
If your an agnostic atheist you-
1. Your position on knowledge is you are (a) "without" without knowledge
2.Your position on belief is you are (a) "without" without belief
Not having evidence(knowledge) for something is very sound reason for not having a belief
Strong agnosticism- The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.
Weak agnosticism - The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."
Sorry but strong agnosticism is fucking retarded but even if you believe we can never know if god exists or not you still have a lack of belief in god. There is no fucking point between belief and nonbelief that's just fucking stupid. Its a true dichotomy.
Jason Powell
> so mad that you respond twice
I know there is a God = Theism I don't know if there's a God, but I think its more likely there is = Agnostic Theist I don't know at all = Agnostic I don't know if there's a God, but I think its more likely there isn't = Agnostic Atheist I know there is no God = Atheist
Take your shit somewhere else, cocksucker. You already started off by starting a fight with OP, now you're trying to get some more attention because you don't get enough of it in real life. Right?
Daniel Watson
Strong agnosticism is pretty dumb, but some people just prefer not to put too much thought into it. And yeah, some doubt in God does count as doubt in the end.
Logan Perry
>so mad he has to cry samefag
>I know there is no God = Atheist Nope, it's Gnostic Atheist. Welp, that's settled. You can go back to your animes now.
Juan Miller
I'm not the other guy
And that's were your wrong. Your definitions are fucking wrong mate.
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.
Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of a god or God, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.
Atheism-disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
All I did was google this shit senpai and clearly your definitions are fucking wrong.
This is why atheism gets such a rep of being very arrogant cause people think atheism=I KNOW FOR A FUCKING FACT THERE IS NO GOD
But you and all the other people are just dead wrong
Gavin Phillips
> Gnostic Atheist
You do realize that there was a reason that I said "Agnostic Atheist" and then "Atheist", right?
Or are your eyes still covered in jizz, is that why you can't read? Or are you pretending to be retarded?
Gabriel Hill
you guys can stop arguing anytime you want to
either way, you dont have to put "gnostic" in front of atheism and theism to know it is giving a certainty, its already implied, but it does help out in organization
Christian King
>You can only hyphenate this one, not the other one >because I said sooooo Oh wow you're still arguing?
Nolan Smith
Requiring the qualifier is pedantry.
It can usually be implied, or is irrelevant to the discussion.