08
Sep
2010
Posted by The Mad Ape as Religion Meets Science
An interview with Dr. Hameroff regarding the aspects of quantum physics and consciousness.
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Dr. Avtar Singh hasauthored and published a new book entitled- “The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality”. The book was motivated by his personal interest in pursuing a scientific search for understanding reality, purpose, and meaning in the universe. About the Program During this program Dr. Singh explains the role of consciousness in explaining the observed behavior of the universe and resolving its mysteries. The conventional science fails to reveal purpose in the universe since it ignores consciousness and deals only with the inanimate matter in its theoretical formulations. The consciousness prevailing in the spontaneous universal phenomena provides for its purpose and the meaning of life in its fundamental eternity, omnipresence, and free will. Dr. Singh discusses scientific answers to questions such as: What is the relationship between understanding the universe and understanding the human mind, consciousness, and religion? What are the philosophical perspectives of the results of this new understanding? Does the universe and life have a purpose and meaning? What causes stress and suffering? What is the role of mind? Is their free will, or is it all pre-ordained fate? How to live a stress-free and fulfilled life?
This is the first time one of the most important of Lukács’ early theoretical writings, published in Germany in 1923, has been made available in English. The book consists of a series of essays treating, among other topics, the definition of orthodox Marxism, the question of legality and illegality, Rosa Luxemburg as a Marxist, the changing function of Historic Marxism, class consciousness, and the substantiation and consciousness of the Proletariat.
Writing in 1968, on the occasion of the appearance of his collected works, Lukács evaluated the influence of this book as follows:
“For the historical effect of History and Class Consciousness and also for the actuality of the present time one problem is of decisive importance: alienation, which is here treated for the first time since Marx as the central question of a revolutionary critique of capitalism, and whose historical as well as methodological origins are deeply rooted in Hegelian dialectic. It goes without saying that the problem was omnipresent. A few years after History and Class Consciousness was published, it was moved into the focus of philosophical discussion by Heidegger in his Being and Time, a place which it maintains to this day largely as a result of the position occupied by Sartre and his followers. The philologic question raised by L. Goldmann, who considered Heidegger’s work partly as a polemic reply to my (admittedly unnamed) work, need not be discussed here. It suffices today to say that the problem was in the air, particularly if we analyze its background in detail in order to clarify its effect, the mixture of Marxist and Existentialist thought processes, which prevailed especially in France immediately after the Second World War. In this connection priorities, influences, and so on are not particularly significant. What is important is that the alienation of man was recognized and appreciated as the central problem of the time in which we live, by bourgeois as well as proletarian, by politically rightist and leftist thinkers. Thus, History and Class Consciousness exerted a profound effect in the circles of the youthful intelligentsia.”
George Lichtheim, also in 1968, writes that “…The originality of the early Lukács lay in the assertion that the totality of history could be apprehended by adopting a particular ‘class standpoint’: that of the proletariat. Class consciousness—not indeed the empirical consciousness of the actual proletariat, which was hopelessly entangled with the surface aspects of objective reality, but an ideal-typical consciousness proper to a class which radically negates the existing order of reality: that was the formula which had made it possible for the Lukács of 1923 to unify theory and practice.”
Rating:
(out of 3 reviews)
List Price: $ 34.00
Price: $ 20.20
This post is courtesy of Robbie the Robot
No related posts.
>>>>This is every silver investor's wet dream<<<<
50 Responses
CACBCCCU
September 8th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
The formula for cell radius I meant to put as the product of multiplying the proton radius (10^-15 meters) by the ratio of the Coulomb force to the weak force (10^11), which I derive from the ratio of the Coulomb force to gravity between two protons at any distance (10^36) and the typically-cited ratio of the weak force to gravity (10^25) as 36-25 = 11.
CACBCCCU
September 8th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
I guess it would make more sense for me to look at a neuron-like action in the interplay between the weak force and the other forces, rather than focusing on gravitons. If you multiply the size of a proton by the ratio of gravity to the weak force (10^-25) one arrives at the boundary between macroscopic and microscopic (10^-4 meters), about the size of a large cell, such as a human egg cell. Maybe Hadrons could be seen as resembling neurons and weak bosons could be analogized to synapses.
CACBCCCU
September 8th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
I had the thought that particles of matter could interact with gravitons in a neuron-like manner, for example expressed with a nonlinear graviton scattering effect and a gravitonic memory with a refractory response effect. An example might be that graviton emission can become inhibited in directions where it is unlikely to be returned quickly. I can imagine results of the effect being amplified with lower energies, i.e. in supercold environments with extreme isolation.
rehabib2
September 8th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
@ThePhilosorpheus good question one could say you but what would that make us ?
ScienceIsKnowledge
September 8th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
How selfish are we to think like that.
Apes, dogs , cats , mice , birds and even insects experience “consciousness” in one form or another. Consciousness exists purely on the act of thinking about it.
Its like saying “up,down,left and right” have always existed, but that is not the case. To put it another way, things exists when I say they do.
david18861886
September 8th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
look up dual slit experiment for clarification
TSyoutubin
September 8th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
@ThePhilosorpheus I’m not sure, but I think it’s awareness.
DeityAnxiety
September 8th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
@DeityAnxiety @adeworks X-Rays weren’t guessed and looked for, t’was an accident as were radio waves, and any guess is a hypothesis like ‘there is an apple lodge in your ass’; It’s empirical evidence that verifies a hypothesis and makes it a theory. That is science. If you read correctly you will notice ‘TOTAL guesswork’.
Where is this guys evidence?
Read my previous message again, it seems you didn’t understand it… but that’s JUST my opinion.
DeityAnxiety
September 8th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
@adeworks X-Rays weren’t guessed and looked for, t’was an accident as were radio waves, and any guess is a hypothesis like ‘there is an apple lodge in your ass’; It’s empirical evidence that verifies a hypothesis and makes it a theory. That is science. If you read correctly you will notice ‘TOTAL guesswork’.
Where is this guys evidence?
Read my previous message again, it seems you didn’t understand it… but that’s JUST my opinion.
adeworks
September 8th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
@marcuelcajon
And right goddamit!
adeworks
September 8th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
@DeityAnxiety
You are born with a brain though aren’t you? And we have no biological apparatus to detect X-Rays? They were ‘guessed’ to exist and then looked for and discovered.
‘Guesswork’ is and has always been the primary driver in science. One comes up with ‘good guesses’ (hypotheses) and then experiments or otherwise observes to back up those ‘guesses’ to enable a theory to be formed. That is science. Nothing ‘sophistical’ about it – that’s just your opinion.
DeityAnxiety
September 8th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
@adeworks If I was born without ears or eyes it would be near impossible to develop a concept of sight and sound. It would be like trying to predict the existence radio waves or X-Rays without any biological or technological apparatus… rendering it total guess work.
We do live in a world where we have apparatus that interpets aspects of the universe that we can’t biologically, so my question is… where is this guys evidence? To me it seems like sophistical guess work.
adeworks
September 8th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
@DeityAnxiety
If I removed your ears would that mean that the phenomenon of sound disappears, or does it mean that just you would no longer be able to hear. Maybe brains utilize (proto) conciousness in the same way that eyes utilize light, ears utilize sound etc.
shebotnov
September 8th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
pseudoscience
mikeclemmons1
September 8th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Agreed. I liked the example (in this video) given involving the single celled organism. Not at all complex, but purposeful. On some level deciding that existence in the micro-pipette was “bad”, the organism displays a behavior (analysis of it’s summation of experience) that seems dependent on ego which is dependent on the mind/body complex. The implication of course that an amoeba is conscious. If one reads a book with a golf ball sized consciousness, they get a golf ball sized understanding
Egg09Seed
September 8th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Vis Emergence..
It’s ridiculous to assume that complexity is the sole defining characteristic which should give rise to consciousness.
A 100 kilo pile of disassembled computer chips and program disks is more complex than a 3 kilo assembled computer running a program. However only the latter is capable of actual information processing.
One is complex, the other is purposeful.
Similarly brain complexity does not a mind make. It requires the co-ordinated, purposeful actions of many processes.
jwklbm326
September 8th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Consciousness is all form, which is dynamic at the vibrational value which constitutes the form expressed. A computer is not going to function like a person just as a rock will not. What is missing in both is the witnessing or self recognition that people have to affirm the seeming presence of other forms. A rock or a computer do not struggle or question the nature of their existence. They exist, only as confirmed by the witness.
MrMeta4ical
September 8th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
thats stupid “We know things other than through algorithms that a computer can do”- even if it has the appearance of chaos our thoughts have patterns, and wouldn’t that indicate that the chaos is really just algorithms that are more complex than we can figure out right now?
MsHolmar
September 9th, 2010 at 12:32 am
@nofooIn No problem. I always see these posts where ppl write back to others and are so touchy or off base or defensive and I think to myself, why do ppl always have to find fault with everything…there is one in every crowd. Well, lol, this time it was me! It’s ok. Normally I would have laughed. You just caught me at a bad moment. Glad you posted back so I could explain. Thanks, Holly
nofooIn
September 9th, 2010 at 1:31 am
@MsHolmar Well, I’m glad you realized that I was joking. To answer your question, of course we are capable of higher thought than animals, but I personally believe we aren’t as different from them as we’d like to think. For example, animals are capable of sacrifice and compassion, which is beyond simple instinctual behavior. Perhaps animals also have a higher consciousness, but the manifestation of it is limited by the capacity of their brains. Perhaps we are greater than we appear as well.
MsHolmar
September 9th, 2010 at 1:54 am
@nofooIn if you cannot think with your brain (and only with the head between your legs) then that makes you no more then an animal who can only respond to instincts. Are you saying men aren’t capable of higher thought? I know you were joking but this is kind of a touchy subject with me.
MsHolmar
September 9th, 2010 at 2:44 am
I agree with you. You discounted that consciousness was not based on intelligence (a computer would have consciousness), also people who are developmentally delayed or severely handicapped would not have a consciousness at all.
Psiafrat
September 9th, 2010 at 3:26 am
The link you sent me was not part two. It didn’t continue what Hameroff was discussing, it was a dissection from a viewer discussing so called fallacies & why he believes functionalism is a better explanation.
jonesgerard
September 9th, 2010 at 4:11 am
@Psiafrat
this is part 2.
Baxter5775
September 9th, 2010 at 4:46 am
“If you are still athiest, you are one of the most stuppid and ignorant person” …
Alghoraba… you are afraid of what you do not know. This fear, combined with low intelligence, causes you to feel anger when things like this video are presented to you. If this were not true, you would feel no need to make such a random, pitiful comment that serves no purpose other than letting everyone know you are insecure in your beliefs and need to attack others to boost your feeling of self-worth.
musicequalstruth
September 9th, 2010 at 4:56 am
This doesn’t make a lot of sense. Instead check out:
Dr. John Hagelin and the Discovery of the Unified Field
to better understand the nature of consciousness and it’s role in the structure of the universe.
Austyg
September 9th, 2010 at 5:09 am
What does he mean? What is a phenomenon “at its on”?
Austyg
September 9th, 2010 at 5:53 am
4:36 “That what [visum sic] I call consciousness. It is that physical phenomena that induces a change at its ON, and I recognize that . . .”
NavinJohnson90
September 9th, 2010 at 6:47 am
That’s perception. Though. That is not consciousness. Nice try trying to sound smart though.
Sueezedtight
September 9th, 2010 at 7:32 am
Likely more related to interpretive skills.
The perception of the event affects the outcome by molding it to the perspective of the observer.
Free will is illusory, in the sense that we can affect cosmic energy flow. We can partake of it and by our presence, be part of the overall ramifications. Since we cannot opt ou” of the process, consciousness is just the awareness and recognition of what we are and how we must be.
That recognition is part of the process as well as our evolutionary nature.
archdeaconj
September 9th, 2010 at 8:27 am
We have here the interesting notion that (to put it crudely) elementary particles manifest some kind of rudimentary free WILL. At the same time, it is the WILL of the observer, at some deep level of his being, that collapses the probability wave function of the particle so that it behaves in this way rather than that. Does this represent a kind of negotiation, as it were, a battle one could almost say, between particle and observer?
corsair0001
September 9th, 2010 at 8:49 am
lol, Fail, If this guy actualy has a doctorate then it’s not in the relavent feild.
adkjuice
September 9th, 2010 at 8:56 am
The action is caused by the presence of these chemicals and macromolecules,which arose through millions of years of Evolution.
dragonflyatrest
September 9th, 2010 at 9:26 am
The question is not about the reaction.
what causes the action?
That is the main question in this video.
adkjuice
September 9th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Consciousness is the neurochemical reactions along with electrical charges in our brain that we use to precive and anlyze our 5 senses.
Nowitzki25
September 9th, 2010 at 9:42 am
the brain is the link between consciousness and the body, proof for ghost. the mind can live outside of the body
lonerook860
September 9th, 2010 at 10:39 am
By energy I refer to basically the substance of the universe, which is synonymous with an expanding space-time continuum. I agree there is no reason to suggest some kind of supervenient ‘soul’ but awareness exists nonetheless, which makes it a property that exists in the universe. Since the universe is simply energy caught in an expanding multi-dimensional fabric, if consciousness is a property of the universe which it is, then it is a property of energy.
lonerook860
September 9th, 2010 at 10:50 am
The point I was making is we cannot find a particular empirical justification for when a lower life form stops being a machine and starts to think. There are different levels of thinking or brain states across nature – which is hard for us to grasp because we only have a language for human thought. We have no idea what it is like to be an elephant, or a dolphin and their kind of brain states – they would not have a language to how we think either.
Spanky00Cheeks
September 9th, 2010 at 11:43 am
I didnt say there was a difference between us and them, i said every life form is different, and that the really low forms are not conscious, just a biological process which keeps then reproducing. there is virus DNA in our dna. search Retrovirus.
WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO, IN DETAIL, when saying the word ENERGY?
And what is your point? This video , if i remember correctly, suggests that there is a magical force controlling natural processes such as brain function. I was refuting that.
lonerook860
September 9th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
The brain is energy rearranged in a certain way. What makes you suggest that humans are different from other living forms when it comes to the capacity for conscious awareness? Life does not guarantee consciousness as we know it, because we are only the human structure of consciousness, which you yourself state is formed from energy. Other higher mammals also show behaviours that point to self awareness, which suggests that gradations of consciousness exist across the natural order.
Spanky00Cheeks
September 9th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Matter, heat, electricity etc are forms of energy, so ya, when energy arranges in a specific way, we call it life. Like assembling an engine, with fuel, turning it on: it will run.
But life does not guarantee Consciousness/Intelligence. Bacteria, plants, viruses, and other basic life forms are not really C./I. You need a bio-electro-hormonal central processor (Brain) to have consciousness like we know it.
suggesting consciousness in energy is foolish; we use to think weather was gods wrath.
lonerook860
September 9th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
We know that awareness is a property of living forms.
Living forms consist of energy which we see manifest through macro-level chemical processes.
It is not a stretch to suggest that energy, when organised in a certain fashion produces the phenomena of a consciousness and identity.
You can see this in action when a human infant is born, it then becomes aware.
We simply do not have a language yet to accommodate this property of energy so apparent when ‘structured’ in a human form.
Spanky00Cheeks
September 9th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
“I do not understand what you mean by wave-particle duality. I know what it is, but please explain its argumentative significance.”
he thinks that quantum particles have souls and can decide if they feel like being a particle or a wave, just to confuse the scientists.
Spanky00Cheeks
September 9th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
“having inherent spontaneity or consciousness or free will.”
So quarks have souls and free will, and can make up their mind what to do?
We don’t understand them yet, but we should be cautious not to give them supernatural explanations.
Remember: 3000 years ago, people thought that bad weather, thunder or drought was an expression of gods anger. Now we understand the weather, and now we are giving free will to inanimate/unconscious quantum particles that we are yet to understand.
Foolish.
Spanky00Cheeks
September 9th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
“It could be the essence of energy is mind, and the structures of energy dictate the behaviour of this mind.”
That the most meaningless and uneducated thing i have ever heard; something that Cheech and Chong would have said when high.
Please give me your definition for energy, and for mind, and then then explain how you think they are directly related. What the hell do you mean by an energy structure. Stop doing drugs.
lonerook860
September 9th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Humans are not computers because they are far more complex structures of energy. It could be the essence of energy is mind, and the structures of energy dictate the behaviour of this mind.
Spanky00Cheeks
September 9th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Just a big slippery slope of making half correct assumptions and making more assumptions from them.
“What causes neurons to move for a thought to occur?” Almost makes you think its our magical soul or something.
Study how computers function and you will see how you can have logical “thought” without a magical soul.
And our brains are just as bug prone as Windows, so there goes the theory of creation by magical, all knowing, perfect being.
A seizure is basically a biological way of rebooting.
allisone00
September 9th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Physics and all physicists accept the existence of the universal laws , which exist entirely at their own free will with no external cause (God is not an acceptable external cause in science). Randomness is a property only of the inanimate matter that has no spontaneity or free will. Only the inanimate matter needs an external stimulus to effect a change. The ultimate cause or stimulus of any motion or change is non-material spontaneity or free will just like a car needs a driver to move.
theroamingfoot
September 9th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
sorry, ignore that last one.
theroamingfoot
September 9th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
come from any previous, external cause. It would have been created all on its own. Mass-energy equivalence, expansion of the universe, and the decay of the atom are all events that result from external stimuli. It would be presumptuous to assert that the scientific community would wholeheartedly back you on your claim of spontaneity. I do not understand what you mean by wave-particle duality. I know what it is, but please explain its argumentative significance.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
previous post: (Two) 1 Oz. Silver Bullion Bars (Silvertowne Mint)
next post: Police Abuse Series-Filing a Complaint on a Officer
to top of page...