Quarks vs Consciousness

[Casual Tactician]

How do elementary particles see, hear and feel? I was raised as, lived as and still am an Atheist. I don't see any reason to believe in Gods or any transcendent entities. Why do I stress that? Because here is the "but" that you may have seen coming...

1. If everything consists of elementary particles or strings or such, why do we see trees, rocks etc.? As the are only clouds of elementary particles.
2. Photons react with the atoms/elementary particles in the eye, then from the eye electrons and co. travel inwards to the neurons of the brain, which either react or don't react with their own output, regarding the input they receive.
3. All particles of the entire universe would fit in the palm of a hand. Not just the Earth, not just the Sun. Not just our Galaxy. Not just the thousands of Galaxies in our cluster.. but the entire universe
4. How dense and real can any thing seen then actually be?
5. Seeing means that one thing sees another. But if all things are made of elementary particles and are distant to one another, how could they see each other?
6. Consider, that you have never seen the sun, but at best photons from the sun smashed in your retina and it translated that input via electrons and co. to your neurons, which are clouds of elementary particles
7. Do brain-cells create images, sounds and dreams? And if yes - Where? From what? How? To whom or what? Consider what neurons actually are
8. At which stage of evolution did consciousness arise? Do complex molecules have consciousness? Do bacteria have consciousness? Aren't the cells of our bodies symbiotic protozoons?
9. If everything, including your brain, is mainly a vast void with a few elementary particles between. Where are things seen? And if all is elementary particles, why would there be things to be seen?

That said, I assume the vast majority of post will be of the kind "If you believe that kind of stuff and it were true, why do you post this!". To that i have no good reply. Other than that I don't believe in any positive, but I have so far only been able to negate the impossible.

[chriscase]

It's like deja vu all over again.

I can actually feel tumors growing inside of me while reading this thread. Grats, OP.

It's more like herpes. It seems to go away but then after a while, it's back again.

While I see the fun in this thread, let's actually try to answer a question? So, what is the question exactly?

No, joking, I'm a physicist, if you would kindly reformulate the question I could try to direct to an answer. Is it about perception, or depth perception or about distances?

Recreational reading from the last couple outbreaks:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ence-and-logic

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-without-cause

[Iskar]

I see it is that time of the year. We've had that before. Fallacy of division galore, mixing naive constructivism with implicit realism, uncritical application of words across disparate fields of discourse.

I would refer you to the previous instances of this screenplay for further elaboration. See here, here, here or here.

PS: Ninja'd by chris. Outbreak is also a much more fitting characterisation.

[Casual Tactician]

Did your neurons (the cloud of particles they are made of) dictate you to write this; or did you write this despite of the causal constraints of your neurons/brains?

[chriscase]

You're quite right. It's all entirely and in every possible way inconceivable.

[Casual Tactician]

What?

[Casual Tactician]

This is about what I expected. Trolling, no arguments, bullying by seniors...

[Himster]

Bahahaha.
Guys, quit bullying him. But also Casual Tactician: enough with the silly threads.

[Casual Tactician]

Just as a fact: nobody has ever seen anything outside of his brain. Take the example of "seeing" the sun. The sun is over 8 light minutes away. No one has ever seen into that distance. The only viable possibility is, that your eyes received photons from the sun and then the neuron-cells of your brain created an image of the sun inside them. So the neurons would have to be able to create images etc. that are then seen by other neurons.

Also consider that we don't see the actual universe. Just also consider the amount of Neutrions flashing through your body without you even knowing right now. They are real, but you don't see them. Also infrared and ultrared.

@Himster: If it were a silly thread, i'd quit it right now. But I believe it has validity.

Sorry for double posting, but I want to make this clear. I do not believe in Gods, religions or the such. I'm an inquisitive mind, and when facts don't add up.. I don't want to believe.

[Iskar]

You need to update your usage of words. For instance, "seeing" is "receiving photons on your retina", there is no difference or even contradiction. As a bonus it rules out the application of the verb "to see" to particles, neurons, etc. in the nominative.

Really, I strongly suggest you read the elaborations given in the previous instances of this question and then come back.

[Casual Tactician]

You need to update your usage of words. For instance, "seeing" is "receiving photons on your retina", there is no difference or even contradiction. As a bonus it rules out the application of the verb "to see" to particles, neurons, etc. in the nominative.

Really, I strongly suggest you read the elaborations given in the previous instances of this question and then come back.

Is "receiving photons on your retina" seeing? The photons simply knock electrons out of their place. So where are the photons seen? The neurons in the brain don't even interact with the these photons. They only react to impulses, which are caused by the photons reacting with the electrons of the atoms of the cells of the retina - among other impulses. No neuron has a will or the capability to create an image.

PS: Nothing I've said proves the existence of any kind of god or angel or the such. That is surely not my agenda. Religion is so much worse than science, as it rules out logic and reason. I'm only ruling out the impossible...

[sumskilz]

No neuron has a will or the capability to create an image.

No single neuron acting alone, but neurons do turn the signals into images and a lot is actually known about how it happens, thanks to macaques and stroke victims.

[Casual Tactician]

No single neuron acting alone, but neurons do turn the signals into images and a lot is actually known about how it happens, thanks to macaques and stroke victims.

Neurons receive signals and whence a certain level of input is received they output signals (up to 500 per second iirc). But what has a neuron, which is a clusters of molecules (which are a atoms which are protons, neutrons and electrons) have to do with an image? This is my issue... why should quarks etc. produce and image? And what would that image be made of?
If you are the brain, then how can you see anything outside and distant. And if you only see what is inside the brain, aren't there only electrons etc.?!?

Consider a dream. Nothing in that dream is real. But you see it. Where do you see it? In your brain? Do neurons (molecules, atoms, particles) create that dream? And if so and if they create your current reality, how could you have a free will? Or can you manipulate the elementary particles of the atoms of the neurons of your brain?

[sumskilz]

Neurons receive signals and whence a certain level of input is received they output signals (up to 500 per second iirc). But what has a neuron, which is a clusters of molecules (which are a atoms which are protons, neutrons and electrons) have to do with an image? This is my issue...

It seems like you haven't thought about what an image is. Signals stimulate the creation of patterns of long-term potentiation. Since these patterns are based on input signals, they are abstractly representative of the source of those inputs.

[Casual Tactician]

It seems like you haven't thought about what an image is. Signals stimulate the creation of patterns of long-term potentiation. Since these patterns are based on input signals, they are abstractly representative of the source of those inputs.

Perhaps I've thought a lot about these matters. What you say in above in Italic, is really nonsensical. Consider the nature of neurons. Consider the nature of what neurons are made of. Does any neuron "see" or do two neurons "see"? "patterns of long-term potentiation" isn't a real thing.

[chriscase]

This is about what I expected. Trolling, no arguments, bullying by seniors...

No, it's a suitable reply to your incoherent musings. You find something nonsensical, therefore you have found a brilliant flaw in the state of scientific knowledge. Never mind the much stronger likelihood that the nonsense lies entirely in your own thought process.

[sumskilz]

Perhaps I've thought a lot about these matters. What you say in above in Italic, is really nonsensical. Consider the nature of neurons. Consider the nature of what neurons are made of. Does any neuron "see" or do two neurons "see"? "patterns of long-term potentiation" isn't a real thing.

The arrogance with which you advertise your ignorance makes me think you haven't researched these matters much - long-term potentiation. You could construct a better thread if you took the time to research the aspects of your questions for which we already have some answers.

[Casual Tactician]

Maybe I have to somewhat reiterate my position. Gods and such are fakes. All I assume, is, that it's impossible for clusters of particles to be the cause of consciousness. To be fair, that is a very obvious consideration - if you take your time to consider it.

Just consider that nothing can be distant to you- right?! If it were distant (eg. the sun) you could not see it now! So all you is isn't distant. Bam!!

PS: at this moment millions of neutrions are smashing through your body and you are not aware

[chriscase]

How would we know anything was true? You make a lot of truth assertions. What are your criteria for these?

[Casual Tactician]

No, it's a suitable reply to your incoherent musings. You find something nonsensical, therefore you have found a brilliant flaw in the state of scientific knowledge. Never mind the much stronger likelihood that the nonsense lies entirely in your own thought process.

Please state which of my statements was false.

How would we know anything was true? You make a lot of truth assertions. What are your criteria for these?

Haven't you followed the thread?

The arrogance with which you advertise your ignorance makes me think you haven't researched these matters much - long-term potentiation. You could construct a better thread if you took the time to research the aspects of your questions for which we already have some answers.

Please state which of my statements was false.