Cern is asking—did it happen? Or is there an error? Or is there a situation we don’t understand?
Speed of light broken?
by CJ | Nov 21, 2011 | Journal | 32 comments
32 Comments
Submit a Comment Cancel reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
@GreenWyvern
What’s that? An “appeal to authority”? I thought we didn’t do that anymore.
One might make a similar claim for the dozen fundamental constants, that were any just a slight bit different than what it is, would place the existance of the Universe in doubt. We have a singular observation, but that does not allow generalization. There’s no way to tell whether it is strange or commonplace.
Consciousness, I would contend, is not the issue. In my experience, I am certain dogs, and perhaps other animals I do not have experience with, share consciousness with humans, albeit to a limited extent. An acquaintance once remarked, “They’re like us”.” I corrected him, “We’re like them.” Until we understand the full nature of self awareness, other than just an an “emergent property”, then none of the speculations to this point are acceptable.
@Paul
– Firstly, your mention of universal constants and multiple universes is not relevant. We are discussing whether mind arises from matter in this universe, and within the laws of this universe. Speculations about what may or may not happen in other possible universes which may or may not exist, are not helpful. The question is whether it’s possible for mind to arise from matter in this or any universe, whatever the fundamental constants may be.
– Secondly, let’s understand correctly what’s meant by appeal to authority or ‘argumentum ad verecundiam’. This can be either valid or invalid depending on the subject being discussed and the nature of the authority.
For example, suppose we are discussing a medical condition X, and I say, “Prof. Smith, who is a highly respected professor of medicine and has spent 20 years researching condition X, says such-and-such”. This is a valid appeal to authority, because he has deep and specialized knowledge of that field, and his opinion is simply worth more than the opinion of a non-expert.
If I say, “Oprah’s opinion about medical condition X is such-and-such”, this is an invalid appeal to authority, because she is not an expert in that field.
However, if we are discussing the best practices for running a successful TV talk show, and I say, “Oprah Winfrey says such-and-such”, that is a valid appeal to authority, because she has acknowledged expertise in that field.
So we most certainly do ‘still use’ appeal to authority, and quite rightly so, depending on the circumstances.
It seems highly likely that you are getting your opinions from ‘authorities’, rather than thinking them through yourself from scratch. Whose books are you reading and whose opinions are you repeating in arguments?
– Thirdly, let’s consider whether Schrödinger et al. can be considered valid authorities on the question of consciousness and matter.
The quantum mind-body problem arises naturally out of the investigation of quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen Interpretation developed by Bohr, Heisenberg and others is still the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics today, more than 80 years after it was formulated. The similar understanding of consciousness by most of the creators of quantum mechanics didn’t come out of ideology or religion, but rather out of a profound understanding of the physical data and the mathematics of QM. Therefore the opinions about consciousness by these physicists constitute a valid appeal to authority.
And certainly their opinions on consciousness and the nature of reality, being based on physics, mathematics and logic, are worth far more than the opinions of, say, Richard Dawkins, or whichever authorities you are relying on. (Dawkins’ ignorance outside his own narrow field, and his arrogance still continue to surprise me.)
– Fourthly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you claim that consciousness arises out of inert matter, you have to either demonstrate an example of this happening, or else rigorously demonstrate a mechanism by which it can occur. Neither of these has ever been done.
On the contrary, the reasoning which underpins the belief of materialists that mind arises from matter seems to be only that it ‘must’ do so, or else their belief system is wrong. It’s nothing more than an article of faith.
The close connection between the brain and the individual mind is a given, but it certainly doesn’t give a complete picture. I recommend Roger Penrose’s books as a starting point, though I don’t fully agree with his approach.
It’s not that the materialistic view of the world is wrong, but rather that it’s only partial, just as Newtonian physics is a partial view of a more complex understanding of physics.
– Fifthly, I only quoted the views of those physicists as being a point of interest, not at all as being a definitive argument.
I am looking at a completely different paradigm for explaining consciousness – and to explain a new paradigm is very difficult. I won’t even start on the subject here.
– Sixthly, I expect some kind smart-aleck response to this post, but I don’t intend to reply further. I’d rather put my energy into my own writing than into arguing on forums.
The wisest man in the world can make a profound statement, but any 6-year-old can stick his tongue out at him and shout “Nonsense!”. That may boost the ego of the 6-year-old, but it’s not a rational argument.
Please, keep it to amicable disagreement.
I have not sought an argument over the nature of consciousness. To make myself clear, I hope, another correspondent wrote: “I don’t recall the source of the quote that intelligence is the cosmos trying to understand itself, but that puts it neatly.” As it happened I thought I knew a remarkably similar quote, easily found by Google, but leaves the question of attribution unresolved. Nowhere did I suggest that it was my own opinion, nor one that I was either proposing or defending.
So let me clearly state, if it be necessary, my own position is the origin of consciousness and self-awareness is not yet unequivocably established, but I suspect is best described as an “emergent property”. In a narrow sense that makes it metaphysical, but not supernatural. But I await evidence and consensus in accord with the scientific method I’m not sure whether others might think that makes me a “materialist”. I don’t think so, as I understand the word.
To clarify another point I apparently did not make well enough; we have a dozen or so fundamental constants that are “just so”, hence this Universe exists. But it is a singular example, for all we know. String theory, M-theory, Branes, are untestable for this reason, again for all we know. We have a singular example of life, on Earth. That tells us nothing about whether it is elsewhere, so have just sent off another rover to Mars–which would still not tell us if it’s possible in other solar systems. We seem to have a singular example of self-awareness, though perhaps not so singular to those who know certain animals well. (In any event, we are phylogenetically related, so maybe in a larger sense it can be said to be singular.) The point I did not make so well is that from a singularity one cannot resolve the range and limits of something one has only one example of. It is what it is. It is arguable that consciousness and self-awareness are somehow, to greater or lesser extents, a property of the mammalian brain. You need not believe that, but it is arguable–that’s all I claim. We cannot determine what properties are required for its evidence until we can establish that there is or is not a different example of consciousness and self-awareness. More than one other would be better.
In response came a rather longer post quoting four of history’s most eminent physicists on the subject of consciousness. Fully agreeing with points 2 and 3 of the later, even longer, post, it is strange to me, but perhaps not to others, that physicists should have been quoted rather than psychologists or psychiatrists. Arguably, in the question of brain and mind function, i.e. consciousness, they should be more qualified than physicists. Twin studies also suggest that geneticists may have a contribution to make.
With regard to the role of quantum mechanics, my own degree was in Chemistry; itself nothing if not the study of the behavior of electrons, a quintessential quantum mechanical “particle”, in relation to atoms and molecules. Therefore I recognize that it plays some role in all chemical reactions, in the brain or elsewhere. But even so, quantum mechanics is very much part of the physical description of the Universe for the time being. I say that because in Science all knowledge is falsifiable. Newton was the best we had until Einstein, and it still works well enough to get this new Mars rover to its destination. Perhaps someday we will discover something that casts QM in a new light, as Relativity did to Newtonian Mechanics.
Whether it’s the four physicists previously quoted, or any member of this forum, I believe we all have an equal right to our own honestly derived opinions. I do trust that this is not generally interpretted as a “smart-aleck” response. I have not sought to belittle the opinions of others, just clarify misunderstandings of what I wrote, amicably done.
Well, nuff said, on all sides. Let’s enjoy the season.