The invention of measurements and perception

@geoffkait if you're still searching for that lost chord, I'm sure khosst can measure exactly which one it is

I’m not searching. But I imagine you probably are. “Good luck to you.” The same thing Dylan sings on the trailing wax of every record.

@stevecham

I don’t see evidence that the ephemeral things of consciousness are well bound by the laws of physics. I don’t think the science has evolved that far yet. It’s speculative, at best, and would require a very particular interpretation of physics that the field is trying hard to avoid. Clearly we’re able to perceive things that don’t reflect physical phenomenon. There are no physical parallels that give rise to perceptions of God or love or hate, or lust. Those are pure inventions of perception that are not analogous to the phenomenon that give rise to them. Perception, buy nature, doesn’t reflect underlying physical phenomenon. I’m not saying the phenomenon of consciousness and perception cannot be quantified. We haven’t developed the tools, methods, or metrics by which to do it yet. But I’ve got Cleeds up there swearing up and down he CAN do such things, which I think you and I both agree is impossible at this point.

This quantification of consciousness is a real problem when it comes to really understanding what all kinds of measurements mean well beyond the characteristics of an amplifier. It seems to me that if we we’re able to quantify perception and consciousness, then the measurements we do have might have different meaning, and we may find that other kinds of measurements are necessary. For whatever reason, we try very, very hard to analyze and quantify the physical world to the extreme and deliberately avoid trying to analyze and quantify the experience of being. It makes for an incomplete equation. It’s the difference between knowing what a thing is, and what a thing means. For lack of a better analogy, knowing the thing is a very single ended proposition, whereas knowing what the thing means requires a complimentary understanding, and that complimentary factor is better understanding consciousness and perception.

There have been many authoritative books on the subject of physics and quantum physics of the mind, including but not limited to, The Emperor’s New Mind (sir Roger Penrose) and Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics (Henry Stapp).The quantum physics of the human mind can now be demonstrated thanks to the Psyleron Mind Lamp, developed by former members of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) group, including the former head of the Princeton Engineering School. The random nature of the operation of the lamp can be influenced by thoughts of people in the room, making the lamp display colors non randomly. The Mind Lamp from Psyleron demonstrates the power of the mind over matter as well as how the mind interacts with local inanimate objects (mind-matter interaction). Curiously, the lamps have been shown to “communicate” with each other. 😬This all does lead to the observation IMHO that perception is to some degree a result of Mind-Matter interaction, conscious or subconscious. The mind is not so ephemeral as people oft suppose.

http://www.psyleron.com/lamp.html

There is also this for your consideration,

“Quantum mechanical terms are commonly misinterpreted to enable pseudoscience. Phenomena such as nonlocality and the observer effect are vaguely attributed to consciousness, resulting in quantum mysticism. According to Sean Carroll, "No theory in the history of science has been more misused and abused by cranks and charlatans—and misunderstood by people struggling in good faith with difficult ideas."[2] Prominent scientific skeptic Lawrence Krauss also conveyed that "No area of physics stimulates more nonsense in the public arena than quantum mechanics."[3]”

kosst_amojan

Clearly we’re able to perceive things that don’t reflect physical phenomenon... Perception, buy nature, doesn’t reflect underlying physical phenomenon. I’m not saying the phenomenon of consciousness and perception cannot be quantified. We haven’t developed the tools, methods, or metrics by which to do it yet. But I’ve got Cleeds up there swearing up and down he CAN do such things, which I think you and I both agree is impossible at this point.

Yes, I will swear up and down that I can accurately measure the temperature of virtually anything on earth. I can scientifically prove there is such a thing as music and with the help of an expert and a spectrophotometer or tristimulus colorimeter, can precisely measure the exact shade of any color you choose. Of course, this conflicts with your closely held religious conviction that you fervently proselytize here:

In the strictest scientific sense, there is no such thing as music, or sound, or color, or hot or cold ...

I can also, scientifically, prove to you that the earth is not flat. It’s very easy to do!
Yet the hand-wringing continues:

This quantification of consciousness is a real problem when it comes to really understanding what all kinds of measurements mean well beyond the characteristics of an amplifier....

It’s a problem for you, and it is of your own creation. But some people enjoy problems, and drama, and preaching to others. So I hope you are having fun!