Matter is not insentient

[Nihilist]

I have recently read Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment and I found it very intriguing. To elaborate in simple manner one need to know that quantum particles such as photon obeys complementary principle meaning that quantum particle can behave as particle or as wave but not both depending on set up experiment. What Wheeler argues is that the true behaviour of a quantum particle can have subjectivity over time hence a quantum particle can decide about its behaviour even in very late state of an experiment. You can read about his thought experiment here.

Your thought?

Totally meaningless, I’m afraid. The word ‘matter’, when used in distinction to ‘mind’, by definition implies insentience. If a particle is held to make decisions in a cognitive sense (which is pretty unlikely), by definition, it is held to have ‘mind’- which describes the cognitive activity.

But if broaden the definition of matter to include ‘that which exists in time and space’- obvious matter is sentient. A human being, or a dog, is ‘matter’ in this sense, and is evidently sentient.

You need to articulate your proposition more precisely, and define exactly what you mean by ‘matter’, and exactly what you mean by ‘insentient’.

 

[ynotzap]

Awareness is an intellectual action not a physical one. If the photon reacts to some other particle it because of that particle’s effect on the photon or some other material force that is yet unknown eg. Can there be a pure vacuum? The world of matter is constantly moving, changing. It’s the nature of things, Potency and Act Matter is not the source of it’s own motion, it is caused to move, it is moved by another, it can be moved by secondary causes as by cause and effect, and moved directly by the Uncause-cause

 

[Bahman]

Awareness is an intellectual action not a physical one. If the photon reacts to some other particle it because of that particle’s effect on the photon or some other material force that is yet unknown eg. Can there be a pure vacuum? The world of matter is constantly moving, changing. It’s the nature of things, Potency and Act Matter is not the source of it’s own motion, it is caused to move, it is moved by another, it can be moved by secondary causes as by cause and effect, and moved directly by the Uncause-cause

There is no unknown force in the original experiment. All you have are mirrors and beam splitter acting on a single photon which apparently has to be conscious.

 

[inocente]

There is no unknown force in the original experiment. All you have are mirrors and beam splitter acting on a single photon which apparently has to be conscious.

Your preconceptions are misleading you into thinking that you can picture quanta. You can’t, they’re so tiny that they’re completely outside our experience, and analogies don’t work. Quanta look like waves or particles at the point where they interact, but they are neither.

About the most you can legitimately do is picture them as probability distributions of outcomes. The probabilities lead to the statistical laws of classical physics and to the world we know, but if you try to impose our world on quanta you’ll make mistakes such as thinking they are conscious.

Wheeler’s thought experiments are over 30 years old, and I found an even older non-technical talk by Richard Feynman explaining the issue: “In fact it is necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions”

Transcript: informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/feynman/probability_and_uncertainty.html
YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=kekayfI8Ii8

 

[ynotzap]

Bahman: I read your references and I find some areas that I would disagree with, and even Einstein would, eg. How can a photon move in two opposite directions at the same time: He calls it “illogical”, it is a thought theory. It even made reference to a philosopher Bishop Berkeley who stated “to be is to be perceived” I would like to clarify “to be is to make it possible to perceive, but not necessarily perceived.” It was even stated the a photon can be in a wave form or particle form at the same time. I can’t buy it. Check the summation of the article, even his peers said that it was usless because they don’t have the means to measure its speed. Consciousness belongs to the spiritual world. Animals by their senses react to sense stimuli, and manifest biological programing, not due to intellectual consciousness as humans, and they do have sentient souls, not spiritual souls.

 

[mkoopman]

How many ducks does it take to change a light bulb? I ponder.:newidea:

 

[glendab]

Hello Nihilist.

Totally meaningless, I’m afraid. The word ‘matter’, when used in distinction to ‘mind’, by definition implies insentience. If a particle is held to make decisions in a cognitive sense (which is pretty unlikely), by definition, it is held to have ‘mind’- which describes the cognitive activity.

But if broaden the definition of matter to include ‘that which exists in time and space’- obvious matter is sentient. A human being, or a dog, is ‘matter’ in this sense, and is evidently sentient.

You need to articulate your proposition more precisely, and define exactly what you mean by ‘matter’, and exactly what you mean by ‘insentient’.

Exactly. A positional statement without substance cannot be defined or defended.

Glenda

 

[Bahman]

Your preconceptions are misleading you into thinking that you can picture quanta. You can’t, they’re so tiny that they’re completely outside our experience, and analogies don’t work. Quanta look like waves or particles at the point where they interact, but they are neither.

About the most you can legitimately do is picture them as probability distributions of outcomes. The probabilities lead to the statistical laws of classical physics and to the world we know, but if you try to impose our world on quanta you’ll make mistakes such as thinking they are conscious.

Wheeler’s thought experiments are over 30 years old, and I found an even older non-technical talk by Richard Feynman explaining the issue: “In fact it is necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions”

Transcript: informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/feynman/probability_and_uncertainty.html
YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=kekayfI8Ii8

First, you didn’t listen to the whole video. His final conclusion is that we don’t know why matter behaves like that. Second I can argue that no change is possible without consciousness.

Argument:

1. Form is an actual representation of something
2. Actual form is changeless
3. Change is the deformation of form, namely from former form to later form
4. This requires annihilation of former form and creation of later form since form is actual
5. The knowledge of former form is required upon its annihilation for creation of later form
6. This knowledge has to have the power to brings actuality so called consciousness