... but only with the same assumption based in mystical overlay that you started out with ... I can put on my "Andy's-advocate" hat and argue that it leads him to an unsupported conclusion.Sighclone wrote:Oh dear, Colin Drake is debunking my little throught-train
Here is the overlay:
First off, before I start, this is beautiful. Sublime. To carve this up with the mind is sacrilegious ... profane ... but if we're asked to read such text with the mind, where beliefs live, then such cutting is inevitable. Note that this is a conditional (... and conditioned?...) inevitability in that we could just read what Colin wrote without applying any logic. Just let it lie for what it is. Stop reading if you have no interest in reason, and the only reason to have interest in reason is if there is some competition between beliefs going on in the mind.Colin Drake wrote:The universe is the manifestation of cosmic energy, which is motion in consciousness, for energy is synonymous with motion and consciousness is the substratum in (and from) which all things arise, in which they exist and back into which they subside. Another name for consciousness, when it is still, is awareness; for by definition consciousness is conscious and thus aware of everything occurring in it. Dark energy and matter are contained within this, but only become detectable when they manifest by being set into motion.
So this being said, I identify Colin's assumption to be of a "Universal consciousness thus aware of everything occurring in it" -- note that the "Universal" is taken from the context of the paragraph (supported by the reference to "cosmic energy") and I've given emphasis to "everything" to draw attention to the crux of the assumption, that of a unitive awareness that contains all that ever has been, is, could be and will be within its scope. This is the God assumption. This is mysticism. Show me this God before I follow along with your line of reasoning.
(completely parenthetically I'll note that Colin's assumption is inherently dualistic -- "cosmic energy is motion in consciousness, for energy is synonymous with motion and consciousness is the substratum in (and from) which all things arise" -- the duality being motion and the backdrop against which this motion is perceived ... if there is something "contained within it" then there is something "outside of it" ... this is not what the shadow concept of a non-dual whole points toward, and here the limits of language and conception are seen to be reached and the lens for the seeing is that of sophistry)
This assumption actually leads him to a statement that is easily challenged, even by a state-school engineering schmoe with no post-grad credentials:
Here Colin actually plays the Quantum card in drawing a conclusion based in another duality, that of life/non-life, and tries to settle an old question about whether life without a brain is “conscious” or “aware”.Colin Drake wrote:However, if you are one of those who thinks that awareness (or consciousness) is a by-product of (and requires) a brain, at the level of 'becoming conscious of something' it is easy to demonstrate that this does not necessarily require a brain; for all living things rely on awareness of their environment to exist and their behavior is directly affected by this. This does show some ability to process incoming data and act (or react) according to this, but does not imply a ‘brain’ in the normal definition of the word  … At the level of living cells and above this is self-evident, but it has been shown that even electrons change their behaviour when (aware of) being observed! Thus this awareness exists at a deeper level than body/mind (and matter/energy).
… but his play is flawed, because how has:
this behavior ever been observed? This goes to the heart of the question of who or what the Quantum Observer is. Colin first assumes an answer to this (the unity Consciousness) and only then, based on this assumption, does he draw the conclusion that electrons dance whether or not the dance moves are ever appreciated by a brain somewhere.Colin Drake wrote:electrons change their behaviour when (aware of) being observed!
Back up and be cognizant of the assumption and ask again, how, if not with a brain, has such a dance ever been observed? How would we test such a premise? How would it be communicated, one to another? What experiment could we set up to explain to a brain that something happened regardless of whether a brain was involved?
The question about life/non-life doesn’t go away so easily. The detectors at the slits in the Quantum laboratory are non-life, and they do not make the electron dance … only when their signals are watched by life does the music play.
So would an amoeba force the electron to pick a lane and go left or right? That question reaches the limit of my knowledge on the subject. If a single-cell organism qualifies as a Quantum Observer then Colin’s conclusion is at least partially verified, but only insofar as “becoming conscious” would then not require a brain, but still there would be this issue of an agent of living perspective … that is an issue that emerges from the direct result of the modification of the experiment where the slits are monitored.
But still ... the amoeba has no voice to tell us of the electron dancing ... not a direct voice anyway ... scientists are a clever bunch of folk though ...