Relational Studies - Theses


Relational quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"However, it is held by RQM that this applies to all physical objects, whether or not they are conscious or macroscopic (all systems are quantum systems)." - Wikipedia.

Is this implying that there is an endless subsystem? There will be something smaller than something else, like even smaller than the higgs boson? Because there has to be a relative quantum system for the view of a higgs boson if a conscious being can exist in such a sub field. Perhaps thats not possible though.

Holiday,

Yes, even the universe is said to be a subsystem unless the universe could be shown to be a closed system. Have the sciences decerned the smallest subset, even the particle might be said to be a univese within itself, systems within systems within system within systems within system.., ect..,.





"General Systems Theory, a related modern concept [to holism], says that each variable in any system interacts with the other variables so thoroughly that cause and effect cannot be separated. A simple variable can be both cause and effect. Reality will not be still. And it cannot be taken apart! You cannot understand a cell, a rat, a brain structure, a family, a culture if you isolate it from its context. Relationship is everything." - Marilyn Ferguson
The Aquarian Conspiracy

Hi all,

Just a thought, if even physics can be shown to be essentially chemistry, and chemistry is all about reaction, then is it not reasonable to assume that this is a fundamental principle in operation here, the basis of being, the basis of consciousness, and the bases of all behaviours. What do you think folks, anyone have a different slant of this?:a-thought:

I've always believed this to be the case.

There's a quality to human perception; one I like to call "arrogant presumption". Most notably - and in this case - its manifest by the notion that says, "... if I don't understand how it works, it must be magic!". That's not to say it *can't* be, but I digress....

Yes, I think it highly likely that consciousness - this thing about which we incessantly babble - is a result of chemistry and the dynamics of neuron interaction (perhaps on the quantum level). There's a synergy, I think, that's created; that product being "consciousness" (this, on a strictly physical level).

I *think* this was where you were headed, Boagie, chemistry as a basis for the quantifiable consciousness (?)

If not, someone shoot me cuz I just showed my hand :whoa-dude:

Khethil,

For some reason there is real resistence to this idea, perhaps the concept of free will is threatened by it. Some ideas that are held a longtime are comforting, the idea that man is a reactionary animal, that his mind is a secondary organ in service to the body, is really unacceptable to some people. The fact that the physical world shapes the organism, shapes the species, should be a hint at the crediablity of the concept of man as a reactionary organism.

" *think* this was where you were headed, Boagie, chemistry as a basis for the quantifiable consciousness (?)" quote

:)Yes indeed that is the inference, that and the fact that reaction is the basis of there being anything at all.

i think it shouldnt be reflex it shoould be ingrained in you.

Zolasdisciple,

Yes what you are stating I think is that we have in our biology the precondition to react, that goes without saying, somewhat like the lock that presumes its key.

I have mentioned before that consciousness might be harnessed as a unique result to the carbon atom and its properties in relation to quantum mechanics. Sounds absurd but I like it better than saying consciousness is a system, not the result of one. This is however, just an intuitive guess.

But lately I'm liking the idea that consciousness is an illusion, or at least, its a tangent to a form of perception that gradients from cognition. It is not this sudden attribute if it exists quantitatively. Or, if consciousness exists (because I advocate the idea it's reactionary), classical mechanics are not intrinsic enough to demonstrate it's actuality.

Holiday,

I not sure where you stand, do you believe in consciousness or no. systems within systems within sytems, what is the relation between subject and object if not reactionary. Do you deny that apparent reality is a biological readout?

Dear Holiday:

How have you defined consciousness so that you can doubt that it exists? I don't see how consciousness can be an illusion, not because I demand that it be real, but because I don't understand what it would even mean for it to be reality or illusion. If it is an illusion, to what or whom is the illusion adressed? As I define conciousness, the adjectives real or imaginary are inapplicable. Consciousness is synonymous with the the world as experienced.

Basically I wonder this; according to to you, what is consciousness? :detective: