The Problem of the Observer

Epiphileon · Feb 23, 2009

(please ignore the underlining below, it is some oddity of copying from open office.) This will be my first post at this forum, I enjoy reading this forum although I have no formal training in physics; however it has always been a fascination of mine. I do consider myself a student of nature though, and have had rather advanced training in one area of inquiry. Unfortunately divorce ended my academic career 20 years ago, and since that time I have had no success finding a forum for discussion of what I consider to be critical issues in the ongoing investigation into the nature of nature, on the part of humankind. After reading through a couple of threads here a couple of things occurred. <ol><li>A resurrection of an enduring dilemma, The Problem of the Observer*. In the thread “Double Slit Anomalies " this problem is directly addressed. The depth and breadth of this problem are alluded to; however, in my opinion are not completely elucidated. More on this to follow. </li><li>A growing appreciation of the tone, style, and content of the posts and replys, i.e. Honest questions; reasoned, verifiable answers; or logical opions and suppositions. In other words, good discussion. </li></ol> I believe it was Heidegger, who first formally posed the “fundamental question”, “Why are there, things that are, rather than no things?” ( an example of the proper function of philosophy, the problem I've noted with many students of philosophy is that they refuse to accept the answers to the questions they pose.) This question of course remains, and it it is assumed that it falls to students of physics to continue to refine an answer to it. IMO this assumption was reasonable, but only until the “Observer Problem” was recognized, at that point for many years the problem became insolvable, for although there was rigorous science on one part of the problem, on the other part there was nothing but fanciful notions developed with a complete lack of regard for anything approaching scientific rigor, i.e. the observer. What is known of the observer? What is it? What are the mechanics of the perceptual system that is doing the observing? Perhaps most importantly; What is the underlying structure and method of operation, of the system that allows awareness of the perception? What is the scientific understanding of consciousness? The nature and operation of the physiological basis for consciousness are no longer veiled by complete ignorance. There is now, has been since 19781 a solid theoretical model of the higher brain functions that lead to our ability to be the type of “observer” that is so problematic. The basic codification of mind has been uncovered, no longer can the argument that nothing biological can account for the apparent instantaneousness of consciousness be maintained. In all my life the meager conceptualization I have of this theory, is perhaps the most elegant thing I have ever known, and it seems to me would be of practical use to anyone interested in scientifically addressing a problem involving “observers”. So you of such intense interest in the nature of “what is”, do you think that the “observer” needs to be understood scientifically at the fundamental level of the energy codifications that allow it to be an “observer”, or in other words, would a behavioral neuroscience perspective be helpful? *As distinct from, although perhaps a subset of the Anthropic Bias issue. 1.  The Mindful Brain: Cortical Organization and the Group-Selective Theory of Higher Brain Function VB Mountcastle, GM Edelman, VB Mountcastle - 1978 - Cambridge, MA: MIT Press <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

centsworth_II · Feb 24, 2009

I think that the importance of the human consciousness in determining objective reality is greatly overblown.  Certainly our mind and consciousness determine how we perceive reality, but they do not affect reality itself.  I see arguments that our consciousness affects reality based on experimental results as being similar to arguments that we (the Earth) are at the center of the universe because we see the heavens rotating about us.  We now know why that is, and it is not because we are at the center.  I think we just have not yet found the mundane reason why our conscious observations seem to have a profound effect on reality at the quantum level.I hope we can eliminate the need for a conscious observer and make "observation" simply a physical effect  -- which we have yet to understand.  I hope this because I think that tying the creation of physical reality to our mind creates an unhelpful, mystical view of reality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Epiphileon · Feb 24, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think that the importance of the human consciousness in determining objective reality is greatly overblown.  Certainly our mind and consciousness determine how we perceive reality, but they do not affect reality itself.  I see arguments that our consciousness affects reality based on experimental results as being similar to arguments that we (the Earth) are at the center of the universe because we see the heavens rotating about us.  We now know why that is, and it is not because we are at the center.  I think we just have not yet found the mundane reason why our conscious observations seem to have a profound effect on reality at the quantum level.I hope we can eliminate the need for a conscious observer and make "observation" simply a physical effect  -- which we have yet to understand.  I hope this because I think that tying the creation of physical reality to our mind creates an unhelpful, mystical view of reality. Posted by centsworth_II</DIV> Allow me to clarify, first of all let me state that I did not at all mean anything close to the last statement of your post, I am not positing anthro-genisis. "I think that the importance of the human consciousness in determining objective reality is greatly overblown" I'm not sure I understand this statement completely, I thought that was the whole point of science, i.e. to determine what "objective reality" is. Further clarification, I did not say that consciousness, human or otherwise affect reality at the quantum level*, I merely put forth that unless we know what consciouisness is, how can we even fully investigate the question. So what I'm trying to say is that we have gone this far and still this problem exists, I'm not saying the observer effects the experiment, I'm just saying that we can not say the observer does not, and one way to settle that is to have as much science on the side of the problem concerning the observer as we do on the side of the mechanics of the experiment.   *outside of the fact that the experiments are consciously conducted, and some that involve particle acceleration, or thermonuclear events obviously do have an effect. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BoJangles · Feb 24, 2009

The open question you propose is interesting in itself, but I'm afraid it borders well into philosophy and not physics. Physics is about observation, and empirical evidence. Trying to muddy the lines of observation in the first part definitely doesn’t help with the second.Unfortunately that is about as much as I can see into this conversation, interesting as it may be. If you could give some explanation or an example as to what you’re trying to achieve with this post (or at least the fundamentals) in 5 lines or less, I may be able to add some constructive input.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

Epiphileon · Feb 24, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The open question you propose is interesting in itself, but I'm afraid it borders well into philosophy and not physics. Physics is about observation, and empirical evidence. Trying to muddy the lines of observation in the first part definitely doesn’t help with the second.Unfortunately that is about as much as I can see into this conversation, interesting as it may be. If you could give some explanation or an example as to what you’re trying to achieve with this post (or at least the fundamentals) in 5 lines or less, I may be able to add some constructive input.  Posted by BoJangles</DIV>Okay you caught me, sort of. There is a way in which this pertains to physics, but in 5 lines or less? Extremely rough:the physiological substrate of consciousness is likely the operation of a nested distributed system, utilizing phasic reentrant signaling, of three dimensional fields of energy, representing the codification of internal and external stimuli, operating in parallel with an identical system, recognition of recognition..that is the barest skeletal description of the phenomena that account for consciousness.I left out quite a bit about the actual archicture. Now could such a system possibly have an effect? Okay now as to the "sort of" what I would really like to discuss, in order to more fully understand it, is this theory of consciousness, I know it is not a topic for physics, however this is where I thought I might find people of sufficient curiosity of complex systems, as well as of a sufficiently rigorous scientific nature, that it might be legitimate to request a new forum to deal with it. Not in philosophy, please don't deliver me to the land of tale swallowing intellectualism. (although not all philosophers are such the is a prevalence) Let me reiterate though, I am convinced that at some point physics is going to have to confront the problem of the observer with equal scientific rigor on both sides of the issue.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Aaupaaq · Feb 24, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Okay you caught me, sort of. There is a way in which this pertains to physics, but in 5 lines or less? Extremely rough:the physiological substrate of consciousness is likely the operation of a nested distributed system, utilizing phasic reentrant signaling, of three dimensional fields of energy, representing the codification of internal and external stimuli, operating in parallel with an identical system, recognition of recognition..that is the barest skeletal description of the phenomena that account for consciousness.I left out quite a bit about the actual archicture. Now could such a system possibly have an effect? Okay now as to the "sort of" what I would really like to discuss, in order to more fully understand it, is this theory of consciousness, I know it is not a topic for physics, however this is where I thought I might find people of sufficient curiosity of complex systems, as well as of a sufficiently rigorous scientific nature, that it might be legitimate to request a new forum to deal with it. Not in philosophy, please don't deliver me to the land of tale swallowing intellectualism. (although not all philosophers are such the is a prevalence) Let me reiterate though, I am convinced that at some point physics is going to have to confront the problem of the observer with equal scientific rigor on both sides of the issue.   Posted by Epiphileon</DIV>or you  could have said, you use 10 percent of your brain, when you're really smart.  What about if you use 100 percent of your brain, what can you achieve when your using 100 % of your brain? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>

centsworth_II · Feb 24, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>or you  could have said, you use 10 percent of your brain... Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV> Please, let's not get started on this old wive's tale again. Or if you insist, start your own thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

centsworth_II · Feb 24, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...I did not say that consciousness, human or otherwise affect reality at the quantum level*, I merely put forth that unless we know what consciouisness is, how can we even fully investigate the question... Posted by Epiphileon</DIV> My comments were not directed specifically at you.  I'm just expressing my general feeling on the whole topic.  Our consciousness is a filter through which our observations pass, so it is important to understand how it works and how it affects our understanding of reality. My feeling is that the filter of our consciousness is a necessary hindrance to our understanding of reality.  I do not agree with those who think that our consciousness is a necessary, integral part of reality.  Our consciousness is important to us humans only.  The rest of "creation" gives not one wit for it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Feb 24, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please, let's not get started on this old wive's tale again. Or if you insist, start your own thread. Posted by centsworth_II</DIV> It's irrelevant. He will be permanently banned shortly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

origin · Feb 24, 2009

I still am not sure what the Problem of the Observer is.  Are you saying the bias of the observer is the problem?  Are you saying the fundemental way in which out brains perceive is the problem?The scientific method and mathematics are designed to reduce most of the 'noise' from the observer.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

origin · Feb 24, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>or you  could have said, you use 10 percent of your brain, when you're "really smart".  Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV>If that is true, then you have demostrated that you are "really smart".   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Epiphileon · Feb 24, 2009

"I do not agree with those who think that our consciousness is a necessary, integral part of reality.  Our consciousness is important to us humans only.  The rest of "creation" gives not one wit for it." We are in total agreement on that. My comments were not directed specifically at you.  Thank you, but I did not take it personally.  I'm just expressing my general feeling on the whole topic.  Stay tuned, my apologies but I am only finding out what the specific topic might be as relates to physics. As I've already admitted I had an ulterior motive for starting this thread, that was known to me. On the other hand, I meant to convey that I did not know what the specific topics might be if my initial proposition was agreed to, i.e. that a reasonably rigorous, scientific understanding of the "observer" must be had, in order to definitively resolve the "observer problem".   Our consciousness is a filter through which our observations pass, Hmmm, forgive me if this sounds in anyway offensive, it is not meant to be, not only am I not quite certain what you mean by that, but I can assure you that it is not an accurate definition of consciousness. (To address this issue is why I hope to have another forum started, an unintended, but fortunate consequence of this discussion is, it is helping me to know what guidelines to request for that forum) Consciousness is an extremely elusive topic of investigation ( a favorite quasi analogy of mine, is that studying consciousness, (at the behavioral level) is like putting a flashlight in a room and telling it to find its' self)   so it is important to understand how it works and how it affects our understanding of reality. Hmm, again it would be a major digression to address this directly, but to give you an idea, consider this, “understanding” is not a function of consciousness. I have spent many years in as rigorous as possible pursuit of a scientific understanding of consciousness, and it is amazing how many things consciousness is not.   My feeling is that the filter of our consciousness is a necessary hindrance to our understanding of reality. Here is why I know that whatever you mean by this cannot stand as a definition of consciousness, is because without consciousness, there would be no “us” to understand. No self awareness as individuals who have the ability to say “I”.   Be assured that no matter how I may sound here, I greatly appreciate the opportunity of this discussion and your efforts in it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Epiphileon · Feb 24, 2009

First let me state that consciousness is a phenomena, (like most) that there are multiple “levels of observation” at which investigations may proceed. From the “Behavioral Level “ where most questions would definitely border on the philosophical. For example, in the “Singularity” thread, someone makes the statement “Surely zero volume cannot exist except in one's mind?” I would take exception to that statement as I am not certain that some of what we talk about in physics is realistically conceivable. In my opinions that would only be treatable as a philosophical question. An analogy to physics, How many levels of observation can stars be talked about at? I don't know, but I do know that questions from one level cannot be asked at another, and that some questions will be definitely affected by the answers to questions from a lower level. I still am not sure what the Problem of the Observer is.  My understanding of the problem of the observer is that observation affects the system being observed, regardless of the specific method used for observation.   Are you saying the bias of the observer is the problem? No, although it could be at levels of observation above the level I would like to point out there may, or may not be a problem. Are you saying the fundamental way in which out brains perceive is the problem? Again, at another level of observation, possibly.   The scientific method and mathematics are designed to reduce most of the 'noise' from the observer.  Posted by origin[/QUOTE] Absolutely, give me rigor, or give me ignorance. Okay now to a more general answer to what I believe you to want, and please this is only one possible question, I really don't have the right to ask this question formally, Could it be that the operation of the physicality of consciousness causes quantum affects, and if so at what range?  Understanding that  consciousness is a highly complex system, of 3 dimensional codified fields of energy*, establishing nested, distributed, phasic, reentrant, signaling loops. It seems to me, that this just might be a concern. However even if this is not a legitimate concern for physicists, I still need to verify that in my pursuit of a scientific understanding of consciousness, that I need not be concerned about possible quantum effects on the production, or behavior of consciousness. *one of the points about the production of consciousness that I have to this point glossed over, in order to not be too tedious, or assumptive of interest at that level. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Search

The Problem of the Observer

Epiphileon

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

Epiphileon

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

Epiphileon

Guest

Aaupaaq

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

origin

Guest

origin

Guest

Epiphileon

Guest

Epiphileon

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page