DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**patuvammnogoo** · 03-05-2011, 10:19 AM

I will however having hard time to accept the idea of "soul" or "observer" being the traveler in OBE.

First of all, I'm not going to debunk your exposition, because this is all theoretical and I still am not sure what permutations of these theories I subscribe to.
The article you referred to me doesn't make sense (maybe I should read his full theory) I have a pdf in which he explains more what he thinks about QM and why he describes his spirituality in these terms. Perhaps this wasn't the best link, but I didn't have time to look for something more suitable.

So in your model, the observer expands in to other states and later the 'accessed information' is downloaded into brain and the brain interprets the new data and give it a meaning by senses - like smell, touch, hear etc. The observer here being my point of view. I don't really see it as the soul, but I do see it as consciousness, whatever that is. And no, I don't know what consciousness is, I don't think it's a field, and I don't think it's energy, unlike most spiritually minded people.

See this is actually interesting but let me turn this upside down. I always struggle with the concept of "observer" as mentioned in copenhagen school of thought. This is still a theory and I will tell you another alternative. It is called environmental reduction. See, according to copenhagen thought, the moon is not there if nobody is looking at it. My understanding of Copenhagen is that it is [there], but not as particle (or object), more of a probability wave, and it's ability to exist as object has to do with being measured or observed (or interacted with.) But if it is a probability wave (as in the twin slit experiment) then it has the ability to interfere with itself, and thus, exist. I'm probably wrong about this in many ways, but this is how I look at it.

Environmental reduction as suggested by Penrose argues that quantum states collapse as soon as it interacts with environment (already collapsed states). So the quantum collapse doesn't require a consciouss observer but only an adequate interaction with the environment. Sounds somewhat like the one I was thinking of- maybe I got my theory from Penrose. To tell you the truth I've read so many versions of them that I don't remember all of them.

So the moon is always there even nobody is looking at it. Ecco.

Hameroff, takes it a step further and model this to explain consciousness. His theory, in a nutshell, argues that within Microtubilins (within neurons) there are sensors that interact with quantum information ( 1 and 0 being at the same time). When this quantum information interacts with the classical information (1 or 0) that is collected from our everyday environment by our sensory organs, making the quantum information collapse into 0 or 1 and this interaction creates the feeling of "awareness". You had me until the use of the word "feelings" to explain away consciousness, or self-awareness.
Our brains constantly make decisions, and these decisions are constantly affected by Quantum events, as you said, through the microtubulins, and just simply by the fact that neurons fire at the subatomic level and sometimes the rates of decay will make the difference between a neuronal discharge and not, causing changes in macro (classical) experience. But to say there is no observer is to deny the ability to receive this information and observe it in the first place- true, the physical part of what science considers consciousness to be is a side effect of brain function, but experimental information constantly shows us that decisions are being made sometimes before having the thought, and something is making the decision. So I still see the brain as an interface with whatever 'I' am, even if I don't call it 'consciousness'. Boy, it's harder to express than I thought.

So how OBE occurs in this model?
Well, first of all, there is no expansion of observer or consciousness. Because there is no observer. When you have OBE, you basically tunning your brain into different frequencies and this experience allow microtubilins to collect different states of quantum information (so the tibulins as the reciever just tuned into different channels and starts gathering quantum information at different frequencies). And once the brain tuned into its regular frequency (I mean when we wake up from OBE), all downloaded quantum information during OBE clashes with the classical information (there is no observer) and we give a meaning to our OBE experience. But it doesn't clash, and is often validated. So I'm not sure where you disagree with me, since I do agree that the brain collects and processes this information- I just don't see where the clash happens.

I have no problem with long threads but I often work with 'stream of consciousness', so forgive me if it appears if I'm arguing, I just kind of meander with the ideas as they are presented and go with it.

03-05-2011, 10:19 AM	#46
patuvammnogoo Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 575 Senior Member	I will however having hard time to accept the idea of "soul" or "observer" being the traveler in OBE. First of all, I'm not going to debunk your exposition, because this is all theoretical and I still am not sure what permutations of these theories I subscribe to. The article you referred to me doesn't make sense (maybe I should read his full theory) I have a pdf in which he explains more what he thinks about QM and why he describes his spirituality in these terms. Perhaps this wasn't the best link, but I didn't have time to look for something more suitable. So in your model, the observer expands in to other states and later the 'accessed information' is downloaded into brain and the brain interprets the new data and give it a meaning by senses - like smell, touch, hear etc. The observer here being my point of view. I don't really see it as the soul, but I do see it as consciousness, whatever that is. And no, I don't know what consciousness is, I don't think it's a field, and I don't think it's energy, unlike most spiritually minded people. See this is actually interesting but let me turn this upside down. I always struggle with the concept of "observer" as mentioned in copenhagen school of thought. This is still a theory and I will tell you another alternative. It is called environmental reduction. See, according to copenhagen thought, the moon is not there if nobody is looking at it. My understanding of Copenhagen is that it is [there], but not as particle (or object), more of a probability wave, and it's ability to exist as object has to do with being measured or observed (or interacted with.) But if it is a probability wave (as in the twin slit experiment) then it has the ability to interfere with itself, and thus, exist. I'm probably wrong about this in many ways, but this is how I look at it. Environmental reduction as suggested by Penrose argues that quantum states collapse as soon as it interacts with environment (already collapsed states). So the quantum collapse doesn't require a consciouss observer but only an adequate interaction with the environment. Sounds somewhat like the one I was thinking of- maybe I got my theory from Penrose. To tell you the truth I've read so many versions of them that I don't remember all of them. So the moon is always there even nobody is looking at it. Ecco. Hameroff, takes it a step further and model this to explain consciousness. His theory, in a nutshell, argues that within Microtubilins (within neurons) there are sensors that interact with quantum information ( 1 and 0 being at the same time). When this quantum information interacts with the classical information (1 or 0) that is collected from our everyday environment by our sensory organs, making the quantum information collapse into 0 or 1 and this interaction creates the feeling of "awareness". You had me until the use of the word "feelings" to explain away consciousness, or self-awareness. Our brains constantly make decisions, and these decisions are constantly affected by Quantum events, as you said, through the microtubulins, and just simply by the fact that neurons fire at the subatomic level and sometimes the rates of decay will make the difference between a neuronal discharge and not, causing changes in macro (classical) experience. But to say there is no observer is to deny the ability to receive this information and observe it in the first place- true, the physical part of what science considers consciousness to be is a side effect of brain function, but experimental information constantly shows us that decisions are being made sometimes before having the thought, and something is making the decision. So I still see the brain as an interface with whatever 'I' am, even if I don't call it 'consciousness'. Boy, it's harder to express than I thought. So how OBE occurs in this model? Well, first of all, there is no expansion of observer or consciousness. Because there is no observer. When you have OBE, you basically tunning your brain into different frequencies and this experience allow microtubilins to collect different states of quantum information (so the tibulins as the reciever just tuned into different channels and starts gathering quantum information at different frequencies). And once the brain tuned into its regular frequency (I mean when we wake up from OBE), all downloaded quantum information during OBE clashes with the classical information (there is no observer) and we give a meaning to our OBE experience. But it doesn't clash, and is often validated. So I'm not sure where you disagree with me, since I do agree that the brain collects and processes this information- I just don't see where the clash happens. I have no problem with long threads but I often work with 'stream of consciousness', so forgive me if it appears if I'm arguing, I just kind of meander with the ideas as they are presented and go with it.
	Quote