The Biocentric Universe

[CraigS]

Ok .. this thread has been spawned by the 'Hawking leads by Faith' thread.

Wiki says about Biocentrism: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(cosmology))


Robert Lanza is an American Doctor of Medicine, scientist, Chief Scientific Officer of Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) and Adjunct Professor at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine.



The basic principles are:
1) What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness.
2) Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined.
3) The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer.
4) Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state of probability.
5) The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism.
6) Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception.
7) Space, like time, is not an object or a thing.

Lanza's original paper is here. (http://www.theamericanscholar.org/a-new-theory-of-the-universe/)

Its an interesting idea (philosophically), so it maybe worthwhile 'kicking around' a bit to see how it sits with the community.

I find some ideas interesting, as it does provide a perspective on science which serves as yet another reminder that there are things out there we may never fully understand, purely because of our own make-up.

Please note this thread and 'theory' is speculative. The ultimate testability of this one is already questionable (by peer scientists). The links to quantum physics I find, are tenuous. (Yep .. my opinion).

Interesting.

Cheers

[CraigS]

I'm going to copy Rowland's last post on the 'Hawking' thread over to this thread, as it provides a link into the quantum physics entanglement phenomena, which Lanza uses in support of his ideas.

Rowland: I hope you don't mind. I have a few comments about the article.



Cheers

[CraigS]

Ok .. from the article included in Rowland's post, I'd like to point out:



So, the observer wasn't human, eh ?

What does this say about human consciousness causing, (or at the least, influencing), the altered behaviour of particles (from particle to EM waves)?

I can't see this experiment making any statements about that.

Surely, it was the act of measurement, which appears to alter the behaviours of the quantum particles … not the presence of a conscious mind. :question:

Cheers

[CraigS]

I am also very sceptical about a theory which starts out under the premise that:


A big, sweeping generalisation, projected into the future, even !
Mind you, these words come from Wiki. The closest words I can find coming from Lanza's own mouth/pen are:



Images of satire, mockery and in some sense, bordering on contempt (IMHO). Which, I think is unnecessary, as some of the other points he makes in a more balanced part of his paper, are reasonably supported with evidence:



… this, to me, is more interesting material. He is still undermining his own theory however because his fundamental tenet lies in there being a direct linkage, (ie: cause and effect), between the physical world, and our creation of a subjective experience, as a result of interacting with it.
:)
Cheers

[bojan]

Reminds me of EU "theories".

[yusufcam]

so no one observed the measurement?

just kidding....

the ideas remind me a bit of the british empiricist philosophers.

who also said...

"if a tree falls and no one hears it does it make a sound?"

so then, looking back we ask what's philosophy to do with science and looking forward where is the dividing line?

[CraigS]

Yep … there's a sense of 'conspiracy', 'cherry-picking', absence of evidence implying something's 'wrong' with science, etc. And the sense of some credibility as well.

However, the bit about time being 'all in the mind' .. well .. there might be something to that … :question:

Cheers

[CraigS]

Hi Colin;
I don't mind looking into this kind of stuff … and at the end of the day, I'd also like to 'milk it for all its worth' and leave with something of value, eh ?
Its interesting .. I'll give it that much. :)

You might be kidding … but you raise the crucial point. The human observation was not on the 'critical path' of the experiment. So how could it have influenced the reality of the observation ?


..or other sayings, too impolite to mention here ..
:)

Cheers

[yusufcam]

you're right, we must be all cherry pickers at heart

(sorry, couldn't help myself so... :lol: )

[CraigS]

The trick is though to make sure the cherries you pick are from your own orchard !
:)
So many times I see others picking good research from those who have done their best, using scientific methodologies, peer-review, etc, and then 'raiders' come by, pick the low-hanging fruit, and then use it to deride that which developed it in the first place !

And they expect to be taken seriously ?

Cheers

[rcheshire]

No problems Craig. But it seems to have created a bit of discussion. It was a little tongue in cheek given the conversation in the other thread.

Interesting - there is a tendency to report according to bias, it's a human trait. If I wanted to go that way, I could say that the act of measurement was a human intervention, amounting to the same thing as a conscious intent to measure, therefore the measurement was conscious.

I think it needs further investigation. We come back to the juncture where bias then confirms our predisposition - confirmation bias perhaps?

[yusufcam]

likewise, true...

[multiweb]

I don't understand the logic in there. I understand that the action of measuring sometimes disturbs the state of what you are measuring but if the observer is not doing anything and is not there, then what's the difference? :question:

[DJDD]

this seems to be similar to other threads that it has been suggested we ignore in the science forum?

i mean, why is there discussion on a topic that quotes "life creates the universe rather than the other way around." ?

:shrug:
:P

[bojan]

The logic is simple:
For example, to measure the position of the electron, we have to use some sort of measuring gauge.. and precision one.
The light comes to mind.. and to achieve the precision, we have to use short wavelengths... that means high energy photons.
When the electron disperses the photon, we know exactly where it was.. but we have no idea where it is now after measurement of position and in which direction it flew away.

If we use low energy photons, the momentum after measurement will be known.. but the position will be very uncertain.

Those two parameters, momentum and position are intimately connected via Plank constant.. and we simply can not know both values at the same time with arbitrary precision (Heisenberg principle of uncertainty).

This is what is meant by observer's influence on object of measurement.

[adman]

the results of experiments change depending on how closely we observe them

[CraigS]

Hi Marc;

Ok .. this comes from quantum mechanics.

The idea is that say a photon, (or an electron), can behave either as:
i) a particle or;
ii) an electromagnetic (EM) wave.

It has been proven experimentally in photon 'two hole' experiments (where a light is shone through two holes cut into an opaque sheet), that the actual act of measuring the particle, flips its behaviour from acting as an EM wave ie: generating say, an interference pattern on a screen at one instant, to behaving as a particle of light by being registered (or counted) as a photon, by a photon 'counter'.

The sleight of hand seemingly being orchestrated by Lanza however, is that he seems to be mixing up the word 'observer', (which implies a human being, with eyes and a conscious brain), with the inanimate measuring device whose job is to register a photon count when it 'sees' one. It doesn't matter whether its a human or an inanimate measurement device .. the results are the same.

Quantum mechanics theorises that the photon is in an 'indeterminate' state, until something, (or someone), measures it. When the measurement occurs, it instantly behaves as a particle (in the way I just described).

So, it is possible to show that by not doing any measurements, the light can be made to go through two holes at the same time (ie: it acts as an EM wave). As soon as we introduce the measuring gizmo, a 'count' is instantly registered by the counter, at either one or the other of the holes. So, in effect, by introducing the measuring device, we have 'controlled' the behaviour states of the light. We can make use of this in computers. It is analogous to the binary logic arithmetic processes, which are then built into AND, OR, NAND, NOR, etc switching gates, which are then used to perform the calculations which underpin all computer functions.

We're going to have to get used to all this 'cause they're already building quantum computers which will work on these very same principles !

Hope this helps.

Cheers
PS: This experiment may be a slight variant of the double slit experiment.

[joe_smith]

Please Note: what I am saying here is speculative and the way I see how it might work.
It might not work for you, but its the way I see it and its my model only. All quotes I quotes are not trying to disproving your view. Its only me testing mine :)

could that be exactly what is happening? the device's we use, are extensions of our senses (like cameras ect) plus a conscious mind was still connected to the experiment say by type of entanglement quantum physics type view ok and didn't the 2 slit experiment show that when we/something make an observation we collapse the wave. It's life Jim, but not as we know it… could the device be a simple form of life a type of very simple first cell?? the new biocentric type view its simple its not all this maths and physics hard to find particles going around and around. its just a cell doing what cells do helping build our reality.

Now think about machines being simple cells could they be affecting our reallity?? could this be science fiction becoming science fact again?? dose this also point to what we dream and work towards becomes our reality in the future.

This is the most important part of the biocentic model it must include biology as well.
remember early cell evolution as its important to my model, and I think to the real model as well. so can you see where I am coming from?

[CraigS]

I'd say that's exactly what Lanza is on about, yep.

But its very superficial.

For instance, an electronic detector has a fundamentally different set of behaviours going on inside it, that are driven by the same elemental forces of nature (electro weak/strong), than my brain does. So, how do you know that its my mind causing the outcome of the experiment, or those elemental forces behaving themselves and doing what they were always going to do ? After all, if my mind is conscious, it has intent, purpose, etc. I'm anticipating the outcome. The detector doesn't behave the same way (it has no brain, no consciousness). So, if you replace the detector with my brain/eyes etc, the outcome is the same. That's one line of thought.

Ok, so one might say that somehow, I've imprinted my thoughts onto the detector.
If this is the case, then the detector also has consciousness. If this is the case, then there is no difference between my brain and a photon detector. If there's no difference, then everything around us must have consciousness (that being caused by those things having been imprinted upon by my own conspiring brain/consciousness).

In the end, my brain is nothing special. Neither is my consciousness. Its the same as everything else around me.
So, were back to where we started.
How has this idea forwarded anything ?
:)
Maybe fact becoming sci-fi ?
:)


I can see where you and Lanza are coming from, Joe. And that's fine.
And I personally don't buy it.
But I don't mind the bit about us creating 'time' through our consciousness.
:)
Cheers

[bojan]

Whose consciousness? Yours or mine?
Or, we are all just simulations in someone's BIG computer ;)?

[CraigS]

Lanza says:

Now this is the bit I can relate to a little better.

Its always struck me as a little (err .. lot) strange that we measure time through our memories of past experiences. If we had no memory, then we'd have no concept of passing time. So there is something about how our mind has come together, that enables us to perceive time. Perhaps our 'operating system' which has emerged, has become optimised around this very function.

It would be no big surprise then, that we would find it hard to pin down what time actually is .. especially if it only exists because we have an 'internal clock' ticking the 'CPU' over, of which we are entirely unconscious about. Ie: time has been 'invented' by our minds, by virtue of how our brains fundamentally operate.

I wonder whether any other animal brain perceives time ? Or are we the only ones ?

Lanza goes on ..

Hmmm … its logical, but I don't much like this bit …. its a bit unnecessary, and I get a whiff of predestination in these words.
:)
Cheers

[CraigS]

See my latest post. You are more than welcome to exclude yourself from this … it is very airy-fairy.
Come to think of it, I probably will, eventually, also.
:)
Cheers

[bojan]

It's a brain-gymnastic... and as long as someone doesn't take it too seriously, it's OK.

[CraigS]

Ah .. geeezz .. steady on there fella … I am serious kinda guy !!
:lol:
(Just kidding !)
:)
I wouldn't want to take real science seriously either !!
(For all the same reasons !!)
:lol: :)

Cheers

[avandonk]

Sheldrake postulated a morphorgenic field. A bit like the Aborigines belief in myths in Australia where all objects have a 'field' or 'spirit'.

The only mechanism I can possibly postulate is quantum entanglement.

I hardly think that the atoms that make up my body influence me to do anything.

You and I are just a set of memories stored in your brain and nervous system. When you die that is it! This is what humans fear to really face.

Where does the information go when you die? I think it is the same place that all dead hard drives send their information. Calculator heaven!

Just google Kryten or Red Dwarf

Bert

[CraigS]

Hi Bert;
I've been trying to answer some of my own questions about all this today …

I agree that we just seem to be the product of stored memories. All functions, including consciousness itself, seem to have memories of some form or another, at their core.

But why is that ? What is a memory ? What is more fundamental than memory ? It seems to me, that memories are kind of events embedded in some kind of process (you mention our brain/nervous systems), which get ordered, then manifest themselves, somehow, into something like consciousness. But the order is important. More fundamental than memories, seems to be an all encompassing mechanism for establishing the sequences of those memories. Sequencing implies time.

I mention I've been snooping around and doing some reading today. I found a very interesting article (http://www.physorg.com/news107092947.html) about our circadian clocking mechanism and they're only just starting to figure out how it works. It is intrinsically interwoven into our nervous sensory perception framework. It seems that it maybe centred within the brain’s suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN). They've also found that circadian clocks in multiple brain regions, and many peripheral tissues such as the liver and kidneys. The retina's clocks can also function completely independently when it comes to visual processing.

It seems that we are beings fundamentally geared as clocks .. to keep track of one thing .. time !

Are we the embodiment of a delusion we call time ?

Cheers

[avandonk]

I have seen very intelligent people become totally bewildered as their memory failed them. They at best were automatons near their end. We are our memories!

Bert

[CraigS]

Here's another brain-bender (http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-04-brain-difference-night-day.html) (pardon the pun).

They've found that the eye is used as an input by the brain, to set the internal circadian clock. And this happens even if the eye is unable from birth to detect object, prey, etc (ie 'normal' base visual functions) ..

This interaction between the eye and the brain, seems to be at the base of the behavioural development tree, and is hard-wired and continues to develop into adult-typical patterns, even in the absence of 'normal environmental inputs' into our nervous systems ! (Ie: vision).

Amazing. But the point I'd like to make is that yet again, this capability would seem to be right at the bottom of the basic functionality of mammal behaviour .. and once again it is time specific (ie: circadian clocking)!

Cheers

[avandonk]

As someone who can remember when he was two like yesterday craig but has a problem remembering yesterdays boring bits. I can see your point.

I have a near photographic memory. It got through my degrees and work as I could just call up the page of the text at will. It is not fair as now everybody can do this with google!

I would be very careful of any biological theory of anything as we are a product of our environment not the dominant force we think we are.

Our environment has as much awareness of us as it has of the spider that wefts it's web to catch onother insect. If god really worries about sparrows does he worry about insects.
Many years ago I asked my teacher after he told me that god worries about every sparrow that falls so therefore you are far more important.
I said you are talking absolute crap! You just gave me six cuts for breaking some rule I did not even know about!

Years later at a reunion I told him I will not beat the crap out of you as I am more merciful than you. If I hear you touched one of my brothers You are dead meat!. The look of fear on his usual smug face was a wonder to behold. I gave him a little smack that broke his nose to remind him that we all grow up and have no intention of recriminations. Just like THEM!

Bert

[CraigS]

Yep. I guess my point was more suggesting that our pre-occupation with time might just be unique to us. The 'us' now seems to be more accurately .. 'mammals'.

I wouldn't suggest there's anything special about us either. (Unlike what I get from Mr Lanza).

But is time of our own making ?
Cheers

PS: It seems we share the same experience with the cane ! I wouldn't mind betting we are not alone in that regard, either ! I have other acquaintances who share the photographic memory thing, also. I envy them.

[avandonk]

I have come to the obvious conclusion Craig that the Universe has produced a very complex variation of life for a very good reason. I am a recovering alcoholic trying to erase memories that are as vivid as yesterday. Some have been erased. Only to come back as clear as ever.

PTSD is memories stored in times of extreme stress. It is a survival program. Do not do this again!

Unfortunately people with this problem relive these experiences over and over again.

The human mind is the last frontier. Beware of mine!

Bert

[CraigS]

Hmm … sorry for bringin' back the memories, Bert ..
:sadeyes:
Feel free to delete any posts you'd like to.
(I'll do likewise with mine).

Computers and messaging boards are good like that .. one can erase the record.
:)
Cheers

[bojan]

Our consciousness has nothing to do with existence of time - time exists as independent entity from us (just imagine, all those fossils... they cant be creation of our mind ;) )
However, our consciousness (memory) operates sequentially - that means the memory are stored with more or less accurate "time stamps" and IMO this is crucial for us to function as conscious beings.

BTW, Bert, I also used to have photographic memory in high school and later on uni.. however this ability weakened quite a bit (maybe I don't exercise it enough) and the problem I have now (sometimes) is, I instinctively rely on my photographic memory, but the images I invoke later are blurred... It was pretty hard to switch to pencil and paper, but I simply had to :lol:

[CraigS]

This is a very bold assertion, bojan.
How do you know that time is independent of our consciousness ?
Where is your test for this ? How do you dissociate yourself (or other human consciousness) from the picture in order to make this bold assertion?

Fossils ??? These are objects for which we have devised a theory to explain their presence, and time is at the core of it. If it wasn't there, the observation would have no meaning.

I'd rather take the position of "I haven't got the foggiest idea of what time is, and whether or not, it is independent of our consciousness".


Yep. I can get that.

[avandonk]

Do not ever feel that you have upset me. I would not say these things here if I was at all 'fragile'.


My transgressions are to numerous to e numerate.


My PM is still good.

Bert

[avandonk]

My bosses at CSIRO sent me to a drug alcohol psychologist after confronting me with about fourteen people at a 'meeting ' they called to deal with me.

This is the pathetic account of their intelligence.

They made two mistakes.

One. They put me at the head of the table.
Two. They did not have an agenda apart from trying to scare me.


After about a microsecond on entering the room I realized what these idiots were up to.

I told them if you don't have anything better to do I am leaving.

Some idiot said you cannot leave.

I said 'Which one of you heroes is going to stop me?'

After I made sure that I was there on my goodwill I listened to their crap

I will not bore you with the litany of my sins but I reackon I am up with the best!


I left this room with total contempt for every person in the room.

The psychologist that cost CSIRO a heap of money that was paid to sort me out said after six hours of 'therapy' or was that 'labelling''. Bert you are the most rational intelligent person I have ever met! My reply was 'you are a drug alcohol councillor, I am just the best of a bad lot'.

She told me that her report would not be well accepted by your management. She also said 'get out of there the environment is toxic'.

I 'retired' at 55 a few months later.


Bert

[bojan]

well, somebody said that earlier - our test instruments, our photographs, our audio or video tapes... all of them also record the events with (much
more accurate) time stamps. Are they more conscious than you and/or me?
Everyone (even you mate) can check them and their data content and you would be able to find (consistently) the same things I would: the same records, the same timing.

Ergo, time is independent from our consciousness.
Of course, the opposite is not true.

[avandonk]

Under great stress many people say time is very much slower. It is about perception not time dilation. It is a survival mechanism that has a long term cost.

If I drill into one of your teeth or play with your wobbly bits for a given time. Which seems longer?

Bert

[bojan]

Yep, "perception" of reality it the word...
It should not be mixed with "real" reality (sometimes not easy to figure it out)... which exists regardless of our perception.

[CraigS]

At the risk of being seen defending what is purely a perspective, (to me), and is thus just like a different view on things, that holds nothing much more than some curiosity value, I'll offer the following for you consideration …

Consider that all of the devices you just mentioned … cameras, video recorders, 'test' instruments, (I presume this means anything with the ability to associate a time stamp with an event), are man made. It is possible that the only way our brains can make any sense of events occurring around us, is to compose real-time images, into a sequence of events which has an order (of the past .. oldest, older, old, close-to-the-present), in them. Then, it is no surprise that we have intentionally engineered these machines to reproduce this order (so we can make sense of them).

Take the video machine … would the movie make any sense if the end was at the beginning, the middle at the start and the beginning at the end ? Our perception of 'what makes sense' always involves a critical temporal order.

The 'time stamping' is derived from our understanding of time. Our need to measure time, has given rise to the clock mechanism itself, which is the crucial element of the video/camera etc. Our own metabolism is controlled by the same process. This would be evidence that timing/time stamping is fundamental to our own makeup and we replicate it over and over in everything we do and perceive with our senses.

Every human has this need built into them, which is why everyone will agree with what you say. But this is agreement by consensus. It is only one type of reality .. and it is not physical reality.

If the universe exists as just a bunch of events, who says anything other than us pulls those events into a sequence which we can understand? When (& if) we do this, we are left with a real dilemma to explain how this sequence comes about, courtesy of nature external to us.

I cannot see any way to divorce ourselves from our own need to perceive our environment in this way. So, from that perspective, this may all be a moot point and serves only as a reminder to us, that time is purely a construct made by us to understand stuff.

That being said, neither perspective can be ruled out as a possibility. The other possibility .. ie: time existing in nature, (as a dimension or whatever), cannot be 'independently' tested, either.

Incidentally, all of this provides the fertive playground of pseudoscientists. Eg: from our own pseudoscience distinctions:

(1) The non observation of a prediction made by science is proof that the science is wrong.
(2) An anomaly proves the science is wrong.
(3) Recitation of conspiracy theories against science.

Lets also not become pseudoscientists by arguing against a possibility ..

Cheers

[bojan]

OK..
But lets also consider that our perception and "making sense of" is a consequence of external time passing.
Our mind evolved to function in the real world.. not the other way around.
If everything is in our minds, then how come we are all in understanding of such basic things, like "A precedes B". Why there are no disagreements (I am not talking here about chain of events that is happening so fast that sample rate of our equipment or brains can't resolve it)?

It is because if our minds were not evolved ( and therefore were not functioning) in accordance with reality, we would not survive a day

Sequence of events #1:
1) I see bear
2) Bear wants to eat me
3) I run
4) I am not eaten by bear

Sequence of events #2:
1) I run
2) Bear wants to eat me
3) I see bear (too late)
4) I am eaten by bear

[CraigS]

Sure.

Does the bear also conceive time ?

Or is he purely instinctive ? Ie: reacts to only events in the present and has no concept of time, (courtesy of evolving in the same environment, under the same rules of natural selection) ?

Cheers

[snas]

Craig

If the bear does that then mean that when the bear loses sight of its prey in the chase through the forest, it then forgets what it was hunting and gives up the chase? Or not?

I guess what I'm suggesting here is that if you have no concept of time, can you have a memory of what just happened?

Obviously in real life, when the bear chases its prey and loses sight of it, it does not necessarily give up the chase. Therefore it must have a memory of what it was doing a moment before it lost sight of its prey. IF having memory requires that you MUST have a concept of time, then this bear has a concept of time.

Alternatively, maybe the bear does not have a concept of time but can form memories regardless.

Who knows?

Stuart

hmm, I'm sure I could have worded that better, but anyway....

[CraigS]

So 'memory' and 'time' are intertwined !
Perhaps the bear (being a mammal) also has memory and the 'time-stamp operating system', also. Pick another group say, reptiles .. do they understand time ?

.. I honestly don't think these questions can be answered .. all we can do is point to examples where a sense of memory (or time) may be inferred … which doesn't really decouple us from the observation, anyway.

Picking a different animal group, is also a trick to make it work within Evolutionary Theory framework. It adds a little legitimacy to the concept .. but only a little bit.

This unanswerable 'other animal groups' loop, only results in what I've said … both sides of the coin may be possible … but one is more practical than the other because it gives us something we can work with .. (ie: that time exists outside of our own heads .. ie: the normal mainstream view ;) ) .. we can build computers and visit other planets with this view .. there's heaps of evidence in support of this claim, too.

I'm not sure the other view can make these claims ! :question:
(But it seems to still be a valid possibility).
:)
Cheers

[bojan]

Bear has the SAME perception of time as we do. Actually, ANY animal capable of learning from experience MUST have the sense of time, to some extent, depending on it's intelligence.
Young bears learn how to live from their mother and from experience later in their lives.... not much different from what we (humans) do.
We (humans) are not special in this respect - the difference is, our data processing power is much, much higher.. and that's all there is.
Computers can also "learn" from experience.

[bojan]

Memory and concept (or sense) of time are connected together ("time stamps") because the event records are stored in memory sequentially.. otherwise the process of memorising would be useless for learning from experience, and we know this is not the case.

[DJDD]

there was a good movie some time ago called "Memento", with Guy Pearce. He had lost his short term memory and the structure of the movie jumps backwards and forwards in time and to some extent simulates this very idea of whether seeing something in different orders would make sense.

[DJDD]

although event records are laid down sequentially does thsi mean that a sequence of time is required to learn from experience.

perhaps learning from experience is a reinforcement of particular events in memory and that our actions in a particular situation is based upon the events records with the strongest reinforcement.

[CraigS]

This is a really difficult concept to get across, particularly in this text medium .. namely because even our language has the concept of time embedded in it.

Anyway, here goes ..

Ever sat in a play/movie theatre, (or a uni lecture room), and been able to hear everything being presented, but not been able to understand anything about what's being presented ? .. Not because the content is too hard to understand, but because your so deeply embedded in your thoughts about something else, that you have no idea of what the play/movie/lecture is about ?

Well lets say, at that moment, your mind simply isn't existing in the 'present'. If it was, it would be bristling with attention, eagerly trying to predict what's going to happen next, and ready to respond in an instant to any situation which presents itself .. with an almost 'instinctive' reaction response and lightning speed. This second state, (as opposed to being locked in your own thoughts), means you exist in the 'present'. You are 'present' to the moment. Perhaps instinct = living in the 'present' and wild animals are specialists at it.

The other state (embedded in your own thoughts), invariably turns out to be dwelling in thoughts which come from the past. I reckon humans spend about 99% of their time in this state .. drawing upon all those accumulated experiences you guys are talking about .. which come from memories .. stored in sequential order, by our time-generating operating system.

Yet more 'evidence' .. but in these cases, we're actually generating our own sense of time, and then directly experiencing the effects of having done so ? :question:

(This is a little along the lines of Bert's post #38 which suggests we can consciously, or unconsciously, 'dilate' the effects of time. Except the state I mention, is kind of like ensconcing oneself, deliberately maybe, in thoughts which come from the past).

Incidentally, there is little/no freedom of choice when we're in this 'past' state. We are driven by logical, rational thoughts, which all come from past experiences. The outcome will always be predictable. And actions will always have a 'reason' behind them. (As opposed to a 'no reason in particular' answer for our actions - which would suggest being 'present' to the moment).

What if, the universe was only ever doing things in the 'present' ?
Would we be able to be present to what is was doing ? .. or would we be viewing it from our own self-induced past ? (Y'know the one we spend about 99% of our time 'living' in ?)
:)
Cheers

[avandonk]

My definition of conciousness is having a sense of recorded events that we call memory and using these to plan for the future that does not exist yet.
Even automatons do not make up fairy tales.

Apart from Kryten 11000010011000010010001000010010001 001!

The last bit was the punchline to the joke.

Bert

[avandonk]

The really scary thing is we all 'live' in the past by a about a couple of hundred milliseconds. It takes this long for our sensory input to be registered in our pre frontal lobes.

We have auto systems that can overcome this temporal limitation. Involuntary eye blink for example. Or your instant withdrawal from painful stimuli that is part of your nervous system but is not registered by the brain until after the event.

Concert pianists hands are playing the notes before any signal can possibly be sent from the eye brain system reading the notes. It is as if an automaton is anticipating the non existent signals. Very good batsmen or women in cricket have this same skill. F1 drivers etc. There is far more evidence.

It is called practice, practice. practice until it becomes automatic!

Bert

[rcheshire]

Alternatively, rather than being a set of memories, instead a set of faculties, time is always in the present. While information processing theory suggests that information processing is fast serial processing, not parallel, it is also possible to do as Craig suggests. Certain actions are automatic, as with Bert's pianist.

The ability to do something so-called unconsciously while thinking about something entirely different may be the result of different faculties operating in parallel? But, it is well evidenced that experts can perform complex actions in series, while thinking about something else. This is not true for a novice who needs to concentrate on the task with all their attention. Learned processes seem to be quite independent of the faculty of thinking/musing and the ability increases with practice, rehearsal reinforcing pathways to long term memory. The expert is also able to perform a task with a minimum of attention while less taxing on short term memory (RAM).

[avandonk]

I would like to offer a definition of wisdom. Wisdom is when your basic primitive emotions no longer overcome any rational logical thought.

We are a product of our evolution. Base emotion overides rationalty every time. Until you collect enough knowledge to realize this is idiotic!

The nice gentle kind loving religious people of all brands of faith think nothing of killing their 'non believers'. This is done through the promulgation of fear due to ignorance.

Ignorance and stupidity is no excuse for irrational behaviour. Or is that stupidity and ignorance.

As an atheist I find all this religious nonsense an excuse to perpetrate sins on our fellow man in the name of some mythical god a perversion of their basic beliefs.

It is a logically inconsistent world view only a twit would believe.

Bert

[rcheshire]

Yeah Bert! I get it! Once a staunch atheist, of the Richard Dawkins genre, I shared the same sentiments:rofl:

[CraigS]

Hmm .. I think we need to rethink 'Bojan's bear' ...
… stumbled across this (from Wiki) … Chronesthesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronesthesia) …



Then, Scientists find evidence for 'chronesthesia,' or mental time travel (http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-chronesthesia-mental.html)


Notice the word "subjective". This implies that we invent the sense of time involved. Ie: we are the source of the sense of time .. not the environment.

So, can the bear also do mental time-travel ? ...



So, it appears that mental time-travel may be unique to humans. In the context of the Biocentric hypothesis, this would not be surprising.

I think it might be very difficult, (if not impossible), to conduct an experiment whose results did not heavily rely on inferences imposed by the observer.

Interesting.

Cheers

[bojan]

Hmmmmmm Hmmmmmmm..
Not necesarily..
"mental time travel" is just "playback" of our memory content, associated time stamps included..
Bear can learn from mistakes.. so maybe bear can also "mentally" travel in the past ?

[CraigS]

Its interesting eh ?
I must admit, I did a bit of cherry-picking. It seems its a controversial matter in psychology circles .. there are 'believers' and 'non-believers' when it comes to animal mental time-travel, eh ?

Either way, the interesting aspect for me is that it is acknowledged by those looking into this formally, that we are able to re-create the aspect of time, whenever we indulge in these kinds of mental-gymnastics.
We seem to do it effortlessly, also.

Time, memory and consciousness are extraordinarily closely intertwined.

I can't help but question how can we dissociate our own perceptions of time, from time in the physical universe. And it seems that many others before me, have spent a lot of time pondering this same question. Its probably unanswerable, so that's good enough for me to not get too hung up on it.

It is certainly fertile ground for development of pseudo-sciences … "any questions mainstream science can't answer, must mean mainstream science is wrong, and by default, my theory is right", eh ?
(I think this was a key feature in the recently uncovered "Crackpot Index" (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) …)
:)
Cheers

[avandonk]

Until we can talk to animals like this we will never know what they really experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCYGm1vMJ0

I am sure I met Gerald in a pub one night.

Fundamentally though our experience of the Universe is only what our brain interprets through our senses. It is a total fabrication of reality. We are just very complex systems that somehow interact with our environment and learn from it.

The amazing thing is we can have abstract thought that can model what we cannot experience. It is called Science and at the heart is Mathematics and Physics.

Bert

[CraigS]

Now I know where you get your debating prowess, Bert. (Just kidding).

Modelling is only a relatively recent 'invention' in Science, also. I'm not so sure it carried the same meaning before computers got underway, either.

Modelling also forms the heart of Science theory now. The days of deterministic formulas being the sole dominion of predictive capability are dwindling away.

Our models are getting as complex as the parts of the bodies we use to visualise them, also.

I have been asked .. 'where will it all end' ?
(I recall the question was spurred on by the notorious 'Dark Matter' topic .. itself an outcome of our model of the Cosmos).

Good topic for another thread.

Cheers

[avandonk]

Our 'nicely' behaved equations just do not cut it when we want to describe complex systems. We have been through this with Chaos Theory and Fractals. When the feed back is self aware we have life.

Bert

[CraigS]

Drifting off topic slightly … take a look at this article when you get the chance, Bert …
Vision of beauty (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/45840)
Its about the eye and creating artificial vision based on mathematical models of the retina (you guessed it .. all fractal in nature).

The summary is:


Fantastic stuff !
Its all about how how we pick out the important bits of knowledge from the 'vast scene' before our eyes.

Quite incredible !

Cheers

[avandonk]

I always liked the look of cars designed in the thirties. I had a 1937 Chev Sloper when I was nineteen. It is only now I realise the curves emulated breasts and bottoms.

Bert

[avandonk]

When a model gets too complex we may have the wrong premise/s for the model. Remember epicycles?

We have two questions we must face.

Can a finite mind contemplate the infinite.

Can that same mind even really contemplate itself?


We have the tools to overcome our limitations. The LHC is one of these endeavours.

We are just beginning to understand this thing called complexity.

Bert

[Polmear]

Isn't time more intimately associated with a change in entropy than with any form of perception? In the forward direction there is a gradual increase in total entropy, whilst the reverse direction leads inevitably to the BB. Time therefore ends with the heat death of the universe.

[bojan]

Quite so.

Contrary to this, so called "(super) Strong anthropic principle" ((which I personally think is sheer nonsense) that some people advocate, is telling us that everything (including time) exists because we perceive it. In a nutshell, they claim that "because we exist, the universe must be the way it is"..
In my "school of thought" however, we exist just because the conditions in the universe happen to be right.. so we are perceiving what really exist (not that we are capable of seeing everything of course.. we see and perceive parameters that are relevant to our existence as species, living organisms..).
Thanks to our mind (pure overhead from the evolution point of view - we would survive as species even if we were not much more clever than monkeys - it may happen that our mind will de the very cause of our own demise as species, in the future) and our tool -making capabilities, we can see (detect, measure, contemplate) much more than that minimum. But we still may be quite limited in the ability to perceive many things - and that may be quite irrelevant in fact (do the things that in principle can't be detected and measured really exist? if you ask me, the answer is no)

[CraigS]

For the record, I originally decided to create this thread as a small test, (& challenge for me), to see if it was possible to have a value-laiden conversation about a 'left-of-centre', non-mainstream science topic in the Science Forum (and, as an attempt to give Joe a little support in presenting the topic).

We've had a few 'excursions' along the way, but I am quite heartened to see that it has run as long as it has, and what remains .. is a bunch of interesting information of which I was completely unaware, before I started out.

Thank you to everyone who has participated.

A point I'd like to emphasise is that even though one's opinion of a topic might be: 'this is sheer nonsense', it is still possible to gain a lot from exploring a topic not often considered by mainstream science, by keeping an open mind, citing relevant information/sources and exercising rational thinking.

One step further, I might even go so far as to say that the expression of one's judgements of the topic, even seems to me, to contain less value than the topic itself.

In my view, dismissal of a concept (such as the Biocentric Universe) is not at all necessary. I am happy to know that if I re-orient my thinking, I can quite happily exist within its boundaries, if I choose to, as it seems to be a perfectly valid perspective. I can also make a choice about where I'd prefer to spend most of my time, in hindsight of the experience, also - which is along the lines of the 'mainstream' Cosmological Principle.

Why is it necessary to label a mere perspective as 'nonsense' ?

After all, don't we live in universe where most things are Relative ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

Including Einstein:)

Although you wouldn't think so by the "hero worship" he gets from many scientists. His word is like a religion to some.

[CraigS]

His 'word' is unimportant, perhaps more nostalgic than anything.

The insights and thinking he left behind, are important.

Words, (and maths), might be the means he used to communicate his message, but anyone who can read and undertake the logical steps encoded in the maths, will arrive at the same insights, and they can verify the results for themselves.

I feel it important to re-emphasise that Science is not some story, some funky-haired dude told some people, sometime. Einstein's work can be replicated by anyone today, who is interested enough to understand the logical steps ... and what results goes way beyond some cute 'story'.

Its amazing how few folk appreciate this distinction.

Cheers

[bojan]

Craig,
Quite the contrary...
I know you were referring to my statement (about what's nonsense and what's not) but what I tried to say in that post earlier is exactly what you said in the quoted snippet above ..
The fact that everybody CAN repeat (for example Einstein's work) for me is a proof we are dealing with real thing, and not something what lives inside us, in our inner private world because of we are (which can not be verified by anyone outside, BTW ;) )

The Universe and Time will go on existing as they are now even after the last human dies.

[CraigS]

Bojan;

I should apologise if it sounded like I was tackling you. I most certainly wasn't trying to do that. As usual, its the issue raised by some good words which I suddenly realised, articulates a commonly shared human trait (especially when it comes to views on Science).

I realise also, that good, classical science must be firmly rooted in physical reality and, further than that, the feeling of that 'firm rooting' must be able to be experienced by others for it to become 'real' by consensus. (Eg: our example of Relativity .. which is of course, a Theory .. ). But as I have stated many times before, don't believe any of it .. as soon as you do, what doesn't fall into the 'mainstream bucket', is lost.

When it comes to some of the concepts presented under the banner of 'The Biocentric Universe', I find that there is a 'hard core' of real-life phenomena underpinning it. Just like there is a 'hard core' of plasma physics at the heart of 'Plasma Cosmology' (I'm not sure I'd extend these same sentiments to EU although, charge separated plasma in free space does exist and in some environments, big currents do flow ! … and there is plenty of evidence in support of this in the real world/universe).

The sticking point for me, is the tendency to dismiss it all outright. Exploring these 'fringes' yields its own benefits … and often the benefit is an increased understanding of one's own chosen flavours .. (ie: for us - mainstream science).

Suppression of 'fringe' discussions inhibits learning, which for me, is the true problem with this trait. Although probably guilty of it myself, jumping to conclusions about some of it, is a bit like taking a sub-consciously motivated short-cut, without even pondering the reasons. When there is no need for intuition, why always chose the instinctive/intuitive path ?

Why not just let it ride, and move on with 'other' business, but keep the encounter 'alive' in the back of one's mind ?

Some of the criticism cited by pseudoscientists directed at 'mainstream scientists' and 'mainstream science', to me, is perfectly valid. Whilst I may not agree that the mainstream science process is necessarily at fault, the one thing in common between pseudoscientists and mainstream scientists, is humans playing their 'automatic' games.

And this behaviour, in the long-run, ultimately works against us.

Cheers

[renormalised]

His words are his insights and his thoughts. You can have all the insights and thoughts in the world but if you can't communicate them in a legible form, you might as well talk to yourself.

I can tell you now, unequivocally, that not too many people can follow the maths or the logic needed to understand Einstein's work. Only those people who have studied the maths and have the logical thought processes necessary to work through that maths step by step can really understand it. The descriptive part of the theory is hard enough for most people...only those interested in the science can follow it. I know that from first hand experience in trying to explain it to people. At its best, it's nothing more than a nebulous concept to most. Put a wacky old man with messy hair up on stage and have him poke his tongue whilst reciting complex mathematical formulae and most people just nod their heads and agree with him...without a shred of understanding. Those that can and do follow it very rarely question whether Einstein might be wrong. His ideas are only a theory, much the same as Newton's ideas were. Yes, they work splendidly in most situations, but there are instances where they don't and it's becoming increasingly obvious the further we delve into the real nitty gritty of the way reality works.

Science is very much a story that some funky old dude (Einstein et.al.) told a few interested people, one day. Anything that people do is a story. It's the story of our attempts to try and understand what the hell is going on:). Some do a good job at it, others don't. Most are plodders but every now and then, someone comes up with the scientific equivalent of Star Wars and the old story is never the same again. It's usually better:)

[CraigS]

Sorry Carl, countless falsification tests have been conducted for decades !
These must have been devised from the premise of 'Einstein might be wrong' !

I presume you are using the emboldened phrases in the colloquial sense .. not in a scientific sense ?? Please clarify.


This is news to me .. can you elaborate on the 'instances' (and thus circumstances), where GR or SR don't 'work' ?


'Doing' science (aka following a scientific process), is not the same as telling a story.
Someone can tell me a story coming from their past, but this completely different from my experiencing the same deliberately recreated phenomenon, in present day physical reality, and drawing my own inferences from that. Big difference !

Cheers

[renormalised]

All the falsification tests in the world prove nothing if the original test cannot adequately test the theory. You can only test and falsify a theory within the boundaries of the knowledge you have at present. Who's to say that in 100, 200 or 1000 years any theory, let alone Einstein's, is going to hold up to scrutiny. It's not to say that Einstein is going to be 100% wrong (or even right)...what we might know of whatever his (or any other ) theory is going to be applicable to the knowledge base of science at that time is anyone's guess.




The emboldened phrases were made to emphasise a point. You cannot divorce his words from his insights or his thought processes. They go hand in hand and cannot be separated. One without the other is lost. His words convey his insights, his thoughts and the way he went about bringing his ideas and thoughts to reality.



News....well I can tell from that you don't really understand either. Why do they have such a hard time trying to reconcile quantum physics with general relativity?? Why is a quantum theory of gravity eluding their best efforts to formulate. Why does GR breakdown at the singularity level?? It's because the equations and the descriptive science of GR, which deals with the macroscopic level of reality, has a very hard time trying to reconcile itself with what occurs at the quantum level of reality. SR deals with the accelerated motion of objects within relative inertial frames of reference and GR deals with large scale geometry of spacetime (essentially how gravity works on large scales). SR doesn't have as hard a time dealing with the quantum world because it's not dealing with spacetime geometries. You can develop good working theories of SR and quantum physics together...e.g. the Dirac Equation (that great long equation that describes spin and other properties of subatomic particles), or the Standard Model. SR itself is not applicable in situations where GR can adequately explain the structure of spacetime, i.e. large gravitational fields, non flat spacetimes. SR is only applicable where the spacetime has a gravitational potential that is less than C^2. What that means is that for SR to be accurate, it must be formulated in the absence of strong gravitational fields i.e. curved spacetimes. Basically space must be flat otherwise the space-like paths of the spacetime in question allow for violations of time-like motion (they essentially can break the c limit). That's where GR comes into its own. GR basically describes the spacetime curvature in the presence of significant gravitational fields whilst conserving the premise of the universal speed limit (c) as formulated in SR.



What do you do when you tell a story?? You start with a premise, you then develop on that premise and come up with other ideas, some you reject, others you keep. You then give that story a plausible flow and eventually come to a conclusion which (hopefully) ties up everything that you have added to the timeline of your tale.

In essence, that's exactly what you do in science. You come up with an idea (Hypothesis), you then test that hypothesis by looking for any evidence by which you can disprove (falsify) it. If you can falsify it, you discard it. If you can't falsify it, you accept it until you can test it again and go through the same process all over again. You either come to a conclusion or you have to leave it open ended.

Many a great story are open ended "come back next time and I'll continue on with the tale". Science is the same...it's a quest for knowledge and (hopefully) understanding. Some of the best stories are scientific ones. That's why science fiction is so good. Whether its fact or fiction, it is the telling of a story. Your own statement answers the question for you. You can take what you want from a tale told by a stranger about something that happened long ago. It maybe outside your experience of reality, but that doesn't make it any less real. You just haven't experienced it. Even if you recreate it (as in an experiment), you can only make it as real as you experience it. Even if that experience repeats exactly what everyone else has found (as in a repeatedly tested and proven theory), it is still a story that is being told by you. The scientific method is very much a story being told by those that undertake its use. Whilst it's not strictly storytelling as you would define it and as would be commonly understood, it is nevertheless, the telling of a story. As I have already said, it's the quest for knowledge and understanding. Quests at their very heart, are stories.

[renormalised]

No Ewoks allowed....it's the first (Star Wars IV) episode:):P

[CraigS]

Ok Carl .. I see the sense in which you are using a 'story' as an analogy for Science … and that's fine by me. Its not my cup of tea, but its Ok if its yours. :)

The 'big difference' for me, which I mentioned, is that in a story, one is aligning oneself to accept the 'words' of the story-teller. In science, one doesn't have to do that .. one can find out (by 'experiencing' it), for oneself. This is one way I use to maintain the distinction between science and religion. As soon as I think of science as a story, it becomes a religion ! (Aka … what's the difference, then ?). Its also interesting that religion has its roots embedded in a past, which can't be verified in the present.

What happens if a story has its roots embedded in the future ? I say that this results in the same as religion (or sci-fi) … and is then something that cannot be used to falsify something in the present .. this in my view, rules it out as a legitimate test of falsification of a theory framed in the present.

I have seen certain ‘famous’ pseudoscientists using this as an argument basis against useful present-day mainstream theories. I thus assume this to be what a pseudoscientist might do, when confronted with irrefutable, present-day, physical reality. ;)

I must admit, I had a brain-slip in posing the question about where GR/SR doesn't work .. I wasn't even thinking of the (obvious) sub-atomic realm. Doh !! .. So, I’m cool with what you say on all this ... no worries ..
:)
Cheers

[Ernest Wilson]

Originally Posted by CraigS http://www.iceinspace.com.au/vbiis/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=726142#post726142)
This is news to me .. can you elaborate on the 'instances' (and thus circumstances), where GR or SR don't 'work' ?

The GPS is designed on Lorentzian Relativity and not GR or SR. See reference below:

Apeiron
, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003 69
© 2003 C. Roy Keys Inc.
What the Global Positioning
System Tells Us about the
Twin’s Paradox
Tom Van Flandern
Meta Research tomvf@metaresearch.org

Ernie

[CraigS]

I understand that the clocks used in the GPS satellites are periodically corrected to compensate for the effects of Gravitational time dilation of the clocks in orbit, when compared with ground clocks … using GR to calculate the correction factors.

Relativity in the Global Positioning System, Neil Ashby, 2003 (revised 2007). (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/)

Also from Wiki:


Cheers