# The mind and something **URL:** \ **Category:** Entertainment and Pop Culture\ **Created:** [February 11, 2024, 8:29pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/the-mind-and-something/10698 "2024-02-11T20:29:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![lausten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lausten/32/23705_2.png) [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2024, 8:29pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/the-mind-and-something/10698/1 "2024-02-11T20:29:22Z")
I haven’t read this yet but I will. Another theory of mind. Trigger warning, Descartes gets mentioned. > **[The Fascinating Science of How We Think Not with the Brain But with the World](https://www.themarginalian.org/2022/03/22/the-extended-mind/?fbclid=IwAR25Mp5eBS9WDp1ZqfllvMN0DJKflrVSJlc5yfCpblf6d4E0pE2msHggQY8)** > > “By reaching beyond the brain… we are able to focus more intently, comprehend more deeply, and create more imaginatively — to entertain ideas that would be literally unthinkable by the … ---
**Author:** ![write4u](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/write4u/32/23410_2.png) [@write4u](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/write4u)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2024, 5:01am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/the-mind-and-something/10698/2 "2024-02-12T05:01:35Z")
> [@lausten](#): > > I haven’t read this yet but I will. Another theory of mind. Trigger warning, Descartes gets mentioned. > > [The Fascinating Science of How We Think Not with the Brain But with the World – The Marginalian](https://www.themarginalian.org/2022/03/22/the-extended-mind/?fbclid=IwAR25Mp5eBS9WDp1ZqfllvMN0DJKflrVSJlc5yfCpblf6d4E0pE2msHggQY8) This is the model current GPT AI uses, but “words” are replaced with “tokens” ---
**Author:** ![lausten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lausten/32/23705_2.png) [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2024, 1:31pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/the-mind-and-something/10698/3 "2024-02-12T13:31:51Z")
I’d like to get to know Schrodinger better too > **[The Atom and the Doctrine of Identity: Quantum Pioneer Erwin Schrödinger on...](https://www.themarginalian.org/2022/02/23/schrodinger-mind-and-matter/)** > > “The over-all number of minds is just one.” ---
**Author:** ![citizenschallengev4](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev4/32/28718_2.png) [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2024, 3:41pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/the-mind-and-something/10698/4 "2024-02-12T15:41:54Z")
> [@lausten](#): > > [The Fascinating Science of How We Think Not with the Brain But with the World – The Marginalian](https://www.themarginalian.org/2022/03/22/the-extended-mind/?fbclid=IwAR25Mp5eBS9WDp1ZqfllvMN0DJKflrVSJlc5yfCpblf6d4E0pE2msHggQY8) > A century later and half a millennium after Descartes cleaved Western consciousness into its disembodied dualism, we are only just beginning to reckon with the growing understanding that consciousness is a [full-body phenomenon](https://www.themarginalian.org/2021/12/24/feeling-knowing-damasio/), perhaps even a [beyond-body phenomenon](https://www.themarginalian.org/2021/08/17/annaka-harris-conscious/). Dang, getting pretty close to “_consciousness_ being an interaction” See, my personal philosophy grows out of the science, as opposed to so much of philosophy which grows out of very smart people’s competing thoughts trying to outdo each other. Of course substantive science is relatively recent, so it’s no wonder philosophy hasn’t caught up to stone cold sober science, since philosophy is about humans defending their thoughts & dreams & egos - as opposed to the rule bound observations and drawing conclusions and retesting that science is all about. ---
**Author:** ![write4u](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/write4u/32/23410_2.png) [@write4u](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/write4u)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2024, 2:35am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/the-mind-and-something/10698/5 "2024-02-15T02:35:55Z")
> [@citizenschallengev4](#): > > Dang, getting pretty close to “_consciousness_ being an interaction” This is Penrose’s perspective. Instead of observation creating quantum collapse, quantum collapse is causal to observation, or a moment of cognition, what Hameroff calls a “Bing”. IOW, there can be wave collapse without an conscious observer. Even if the term observer is used as any sentient organism, the result of physical interaction is collapse of the wavefunction, but the wave collapse itself is only “_ **experienced** _” (cognized) by the observers after the interactive event. ---
**Author:** ![citizenschallengev4](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev4/32/28718_2.png) [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2024, 3:55am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/the-mind-and-something/10698/6 "2024-02-15T03:55:49Z")
> [@write4u](#): > > quantum collapse is causal to observation It’s hard for me to comprehend the concept of _conscious observer_ at Planck Scales. Sure an atom smashers can “observe” Planck Scale events. But for crying out loud, there are around **100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^20)** atoms in a grain of sand. Consciousness is about creature bodies interacting with environments and each other. Consciousness is complex and ever changing, far beyond the Planck realm. > [@write4u](#): > > IOW, there can be wave collapse without an conscious observer. That’s nice to know. > [@write4u](#): > > the result of physical interaction is collapse of the wavefunction Physical interaction? Don’t you mean subatomic physical interaction? There are no biological ‘creatures’ down at the Planck Scale. > [@write4u](#): > > but the wave collapse itself is only “_ **experienced** _” (cognized) by the observers after the interactive event. The **observers cognized the wave function collapse?** Seriously? What “observes” are you referring to? Mind experiment observers? Right? Aren’t you talking about the world of metaphor, and mathematics? Oh and these cognized wave function collapse happen in [Femtoseconds](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/femtosecond), one right after another. How does that convert to consciousness at biological speeds. ---
**Author:** ![write4u](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/write4u/32/23410_2.png) [@write4u](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/write4u)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2024, 8:51am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/the-mind-and-something/10698/7 "2024-02-16T08:51:39Z")
> [@citizenschallengev4](#): > > It’s hard for me to comprehend the concept of _conscious observer_ at Planck Scales. Yes, but in physics an observer is defined as: **Observer (quantum physics)** > Some interpretations of quantum mechanics posit a central role for an observer of a quantum phenomenon.[1] The quantum mechanical observer is tied to the issue of observer effect, where a measurement necessarily requires interacting with the physical object being measured, affecting its properties through the interaction. The term “observable” has gained a technical meaning, denoting a Hermitian operator that represents a measurement.[2]: 55 **Description** The Copenhagen interpretation, which is the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists,[1][3]: 248 posits that an “observer” or a “measurement” is merely a physical process. One of the founders of the Copenhagen interpretation, Werner Heisenberg, wrote: > Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the “possible” to the “actual,” is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.[4] more… [Observer (quantum physics) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)) ---
**Author:** ![lausten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/lausten/32/23705_2.png) [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2024, 12:42pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/the-mind-and-something/10698/8 "2024-02-16T12:42:07Z")
> [@write4u](#): > > The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; Registering decisions is not consciousness. That’s what this says. From the wiki link > The prominence of seemingly subjective or anthropocentric ideas like “observer” in the early development of the theory has been a continuing source of disquiet and philosophical dispute. ---
**Author:** ![citizenschallengev4](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.centerforinquiry.org/citizenschallengev4/32/28718_2.png) [@citizenschallengev4](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev4)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2024, 2:07pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/the-mind-and-something/10698/9 "2024-02-16T14:07:41Z")
The Observer = the hypothetical = echo’s of a longing for a god. 😉 Or simply a bunch of manmade mischief?