The observer...proof of our immortality?

[Amorphos]

The observer...proof of our immortality?

The observer is a scientifically proven entity of self [relativity and quantum physics]. But how can it possibly be simply a function of the brain? I mean is it an interaction of the electro chemical matrix of our neurons, if so then it must come down to electrons interacting with photons yes? If this is the case then all electrons must be observers, yet would you think that the electricity running through the cable in your home is capable of such a thing esp' when considering how powerful and fundamental the observer is to 'you'. If any kind of particle was an observer then that would mean that the quantum energies that they are composed of are also observers – which is literally impossible as they would then observe each other which would have a measurable effect just as when they are observed by us!

I know some people will think that the observer is a collection of particles that when put together in a 'special arrangement' [?] like as a matrix of neurons in the brain, then they somehow become the entity which we call the observer as if by magic. But even if this most unlikely scenario is said to be so, we are left with several problems, firstly the said matrix must have 'gained' something that is the entity of the observer. Secondly, we are still left with the question; what is the observer! What exactly is it that can travel vast distances instantly and connect with objects or quantum energies?

If the observer is non physical what is it? It is simply an entity unto itself it needs no other definition to verify itself it is simply a non physical entity that is as real as any physical entity. Once we come to this realisation then it must be noted that 'you' [holistic self] and the observer cannot be separated, the observer is simply a part of the greater entity of 'mind' that is you, so if the observer exists as its own entity then the mind must also exist as its own entity as they are indistinguishable.

Both the observer and the mind then are not constrained by the physicality of the human form, nor of physicality itself!
So what limits this entity/being? They are not produced physically or this would mean that quantum energies and the particles they compose have the 'ability' to create observers!.. [and mind nature] which they do not, or that energy can create non-energy entities, if this is the case then [extremely doubtful] we would soon be asking if energy is created by non physical entities as this is the obvious inversion of the case.

People like Richard Dawkins [whom i admire greatly] say prove that the soul exists, well i say to them prove that it does not!

.
Q/attila of nazareth [formerly]

[Fenris]

Relativity and quantum physics are not scientifically proven.

[Amorphos]

fenris, hi

I would think they are as true as anything can be shown to be true – wouldn't you?

Secondly; if they were, would that make my theory true?

[Tom Paine]

I'd advise you to look up some McKay; mind and brain are the same thing but a semantically different way of talking about it; referring to thoughts is simply a top-down way to talk about the bottom-up mechanics of neurons firing etc. Its not a special arrangement, remember; its a unique one; and one we cannot replicate or even understand; as such, yes, it is simply a collection of particles interacting in a complex way. I don't see, by the by, why the particles/mtter must have gained anything.

[Amorphos]

Hi GS

i don't agree with the idea the the brain and mind are the same thing; take sight for example, what is it that sees? I have talked about this before but I'll repeat; if you connect a video to a computer it cannot see! It simply receives information and computes it – just as does our brain from the eyes, yet with the computer video link, there is no user i.e. No 'it' that sees. The brain is exactly that, an organic computer, a very complex one yes but i feel there is a lot more than semantics whereby lies the difference. when we see, the eyes are simply recieving light radiation that is tranformed into information in the visual cortex, this is a very mechanical thing yet we see things, we don't simply experience information recieval.
I am no physicist but...
If one electron has a given set of attributes, then you cannot have another electron that for instance can observe or is the nature of mind or that which sees feels etc.

all the way down the line there is an 'it' that is the user and the experiencer no matter how you look at it imho.

[Fenris]

i don't agree with the idea the the brain and mind are the same thing; take sight for example, what is it that sees? I have talked about this before but I'll repeat; if you connect a video to a computer it cannot see! It simply receives information and computes it – just as does our brain from the eyes, yet with the computer video link, there is no user i.e. No 'it' that sees. The brain is exactly that, an organic computer, a very complex one yes but i feel there is a lot more than semantics whereby lies the difference. when we see, the eyes are simply recieving light radiation that is tranformed into information in the visual cortex, this is a very mechanical thing yet we see things, we don't simply experience information recieval.

Bad comparison. You can program a computer to analyse any image it gets and deduct proprieties. The difference is that the programmer is the DNA and we memorise from experiences just like a computer would be able to do if programmed to. Of course, computers and programming is nowhere close to the complexity of the brain, but I believe that a computer could be programmed to be "creative", but it would require insanely more advanced technology and techniques than we have now.

I am no physicist but...
If one electron has a given set of attributes, then you cannot have another electron that for instance can observe or is the nature of mind or that which sees feels etc.

all the way down the line there is an 'it' that is the user and the experiencer no matter how you look at it imho.

How do you explain that a certain amount of electrons, protons and neutrons can give so different elements? Because the different structures and combinations give different results. Just like the combinaison and and structure of different elements will give completly different results. A bacteria, a human, a tree and a rock and all only made of protons, electrons and neutrons at the very base, just organised differently.

[Tom Paine]

But you don't have one electron with different properties you have a vast complex array of neurons, electrons, neural pathways, and what have you; that's the difference. We are one giant computer, yes; one with free will? maybe, but that's another debate. We are vastly more complex than any computer and thus your video analogy is seriously flawed.

[Amorphos]

Great arguments chaps – but don't be blinded by science!

I used a simple analogy to point out one of our most apparently obvious truths, there are many aspects to the argument;
{a}
the will
the experiencer: that which sees, feels etc.
the being or the user – if you will.
The observer

all of these aspects of 'you' [the entire holistic being] are not part of the computer and thence nor of human form in general.
quote;
You can program a computer to analyse any image it gets and deduct proprieties.

Yes just like the brain does with the input from the eyes, thats the whole point; the computation is not the experience of seeing!
quote;
The difference is that the programmer is the DNA and we memorise from experiences

yes true, yet is this the whole picture? All the way down the line there is an interaction with the experiencer, what it observes and how this is utilised by the memory to remap the dna. It is a duel thing, just as the freedom of will is between the individual and the environment.
quote;
a computer could be programmed to be "creative"

i agree. By comparing information and deducing results of combinations of that info an advanced computer could resolve issues and create ideas – possibly even put forwards complex philosophical notions. But we have the capacity to create anew, not just from existing info. we don't always use our brains computational factors to achieve this as with certain kinds of geniuses whom can resolve multiple equations of pi by visualising a given set of imagery [hmm another debate perhaps].
quote;
How do you explain that a certain amount of electrons, protons and neutrons can give so different elements?

Its like lego, you have a load of different blocks that may be arranged in different combinations to build a given set of objects. Just like you add electrons and go from gold to lead on the periodic table.

I think we have to face the fact that we know so much about the world and the human form – even the brain, that the more we know the more it becomes
impossible to resolve the mind body dichotomy. There is no part or combination of parts that are 'you' [in the above context {a}].

.

[Ummon]

My dear friend Plumed Serpent! :wink:

I have just come to the conclusion that, from a purely scientific point of view, the existence of a non-material soul-like phenomenon, can be proven. The argument spontaneously popped up in my mind as happens usually in these times, just after I finalised the protocols of my current experiments with the local University. Creative job done, new creative job ready.

Probably, based on a line of thought which spans from Quantum Physics to Parapsychology, to Psychology, to Mathematics, we are essentially about to prove the existence of an (immortal, or more correctly, collectively immortal) soul.

Unfortunately this requires that I finally get a third degree, in Physics, sometimes in the future.

[Tom Paine]

Furthermore if it is proven what then needs proving is the interface between mind and brain (ie physical and nonphysical); there is no mechanism currently known of for this and i look forward to your conclusions on the matter.

[SoggyFrog]

All I can offer up is that disparate states of consciousness can depend on specific physical differences, in terms of disorder or development. While the contention of a soul cannot be discussed with respect to the dead, it can be discussed concerning different species, different stages of human development, or different mental disorders. In these cases, the capacity to be conscious in a way that we are familiar with simply does not exist, but there is a kind of consciousness, and this is directly a product of the physical state.

As for how consciousness exists because of the brain, I don't yet have a satisfactory explanation, but it's also [near] impossible to imagine the process of any other complex mind because of massive and minute differences in physical organization.

[Amorphos]

Hi ummon,

sounds fascinating! Do keep us informed of progress! Good luck with the physics mate!

I don't think we need proof cos we exist yeah lol

people i have been speaking with, seam to be arriving at similar conclusions – that there is a collective 'intellect' neh even a soul. Of course this leaves us with the questions i have been asking since i came here! Come to think of it, proof will bring us all back to the beginnings of historical philosophy and we'll have to go through the whole process again!

GS hi
quote:
the interface between mind and brain (ie physical and nonphysical)

well if quantum energies can arise from nothing, then where is the duality? Does there have to be anything that is the interface, rather than simply us utilising the human form just like when we step in a car and drive it. On the opposite end of the scale to the quantum; At some point there has to come a realisation of a larger overall entity that is reality. The universe is within this entity not equal to or greater than. No matter how we warp space so that it folds in on itself like a circle we are still left with a before and after even if it is outside of time or timeless.

Soggyfrog, hi

i don't see why consciousness is directly a result of the physical state. We see disorders and injury as something that 'takes away' elements of our being, yet what does dysfunction take away...
a. the experiencer?
b. the observer?
c. the being?
etcetera. It takes nothing away, it simply removes the relative capacities for functioning in the world! Just as in the car analogy; if you remove the seats you get an uncomfortable ride, if you take away the lights you cant see at night, if you take away two wheels then you go around in circles. Whatever you take away, it is of the car not the driver. As with people whom suffer severe disabilities, there is still that same person you loved or knew, an accident doesn't change that. Similarly as concerns death, the vehicle [human form] is completely removed, this in my opinion is not so bad as we are not constrained by that form, which i believe is severely disabled in any condition.

.

[Ummon]

Hi ummon,

sounds fascinating! Do keep us informed of progress! Good luck with the physics mate!

Currently I'm tackling the theory of graphs and nonlinear 1/f grade equations because they're used for neural network design. In a few years though...

I don't think we need proof cos we exist yeah lol

people i have been speaking with, seam to be arriving at similar conclusions – that there is a collective 'intellect' neh even a soul. Of course this leaves us with the questions i have been asking since i came here! Come to think of it, proof will bring us all back to the beginnings of historical philosophy and we'll have to go through the whole process again!

Opinions remain interesting tidbits, some demonstration will be needed for the fun to be real. :wink:

[Amorphos]

quote:ummon... Opinions remain interesting tidbits, some demonstration will be needed for the fun to be real

i cant imagine science finding a god that is particularly definable, [i hope] certainly not a god in the traditional almost infantile definition.
Good luck with your 1/f grade equations, I'll continue on a more Socratic level.