observer effect...

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

observer effect...

Unread postby Tee » Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:43 pm

disclaimer, modified dewey alphabet system in effect...

observation is interaction...

single celled organisms are observers...

there are 2 kinds of things in this universe, the observer and the observed...

was the observed here first, not being observed?...

are the elements and forces the proverbial egg that came before the chicken?...

has observer and observed been around all the time?...

thats my human question for today, ; )~...
tell all the truth, but tell it slant... Emily Dickinson
Tee
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:08 pm
Location: Western Canada

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Tina » Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:58 pm

Tee wrote: there are 2 kinds of things in this universe, the observer and the observed...
....has observer and observed been around all the time?...


OK - let's clear up one assumption: How do we know that the "observed" is not unaware of being observed and thus is also observing the "observer" in return (as in watching you watching me) If this is the case then everything is at once the observer and the observed.
User avatar
Tina
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: NSW Australia

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Sparky » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:19 pm

observation is interaction...


really, a reciprocal action or effect between a human and a rock?

single celled organisms are observers...


seems like a far stretch to assign electrochemical reactions to "observational" abilities.

was the observed here first, not being observed?--


well, yes, unless you subscribe to a metaphysical being keeping a big eye on everything. :D :D

--has observer and observed been around all the time?


hmmmmmm, i would say this is in the wrong forum....it qualifies for the NIMI forum. ;)

not sure if you are coming from a quantum mechanics or/and religious perspective. :roll:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Tina » Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:14 pm

Sparky may be right in suggesting posting in New Insights and Mad Ideas (NIMI) Forum.

If you haven't worked it out yet to EDIT your posts:

1) Make sure you are logged in.
2) Locate post to be edited.
3) Select EDIT button on top right hand side of post. (There is a time limit for editing I think)
4) A text box will appear displaying your post.
5) Edit this text - then hit the SUBMIT button
6) The edited version of your post should now appear in the thread.
User avatar
Tina
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: NSW Australia

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Tina » Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:35 pm

Sparky wrote:
observation is interaction...


really, a reciprocal action or effect between a human and a rock?


Yes maybe really! If we think in terms of "observation" as "detection" then on an atomic/sub-atomic level the rock might be detecting the emissions from "observer" and interacting with these emissions.

Sparky wrote:
single celled organisms are observers...


seems like a far stretch to assign electrochemical reactions to "observational" abilities.


Knowledge of quorum sensing in bacteria clearly proves the 'observational" (detection) abilities of electrochemical reactions in single-celled organisms.

Wiki: Quorum sensing is a system of stimulus and response correlated to population density. Many species of bacteria use quorum sensing to coordinate gene expression according to the density of their local population. In similar fashion, some social insects use quorum sensing to determine where to nest. In addition to its function in biological systems, quorum sensing has several useful applications for computing and robotics.
User avatar
Tina
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: NSW Australia

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:14 am

Tina wrote:
Sparky wrote:
observation is interaction...


really, a reciprocal action or effect between a human and a rock?


Yes maybe really! If we think in terms of "observation" as "detection" then on an atomic/sub-atomic level the rock might be detecting the emissions from "observer" and interacting with these emissions.


Thank you for your input....but, like i implied, a far stretch, and going to the sub-atomic and below is really a far stretch. What if observation was done at a considerable distance, say looking at the moon? I consider "detection" as only a part of the observational process.
But, i do see your point, and have at times in my life, considered such a viewpoint.

Sparky wrote:
single celled organisms are observers...


seems like a far stretch to assign electrochemical reactions to "observational" abilities.


Knowledge of quorum sensing in bacteria clearly proves the 'observational" (detection) abilities of electrochemical reactions in single-celled organisms.

Wiki: Quorum sensing is a system of stimulus and response correlated to population density. Many species of bacteria use quorum sensing to coordinate gene expression according to the density of their local population. In similar fashion, some social insects use quorum sensing to determine where to nest. In addition to its function in biological systems, quorum sensing has several useful applications for computing and robotics.


"clearly proves"? observation? no, it clearly proves a complex electro-chemical detection and response, from what little i know of it. there is no thought process involved, just the simplest biological stimulus/response actions. again, a far stretch. Again, i see your point and how you might have arrived at it, but i am not convinced, though you may be correct.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Tee » Sun Jul 10, 2011 1:28 pm

ya i found the edit button right after i posted ty...

i was working with the assumption that life is the observer and say, the rock, is the observed...

im also working with the 5 senses not being 5 senses, but, 1 sense, with 5 avenues of input, for the human animal...

the 1 sense being observation...

and i am not a trained specialist in anything, im just asking to further my own interests on the subject...

your input is great, ty...
tell all the truth, but tell it slant... Emily Dickinson
Tee
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:08 pm
Location: Western Canada

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:44 pm

im also working with the 5 senses not being 5 senses, but, 1 sense, with 5 avenues of input, for the human animal...

the 1 sense being observation...


we need to get on the same page here...you need to decide if you want scientific explanations or metaphysical imaginations.

currently, there are 5 senses that are recognized...there may be more. Each has an area or areas of the brain that they are processed in, with some overlap. for instance you taste with the tongue, but it also feels pressure/pain. Each is a type of detection.

I contend that "observation" is more than detection, it must utilize a thought process for analysis of that detected. There is no sight input to the brain which does not require analysis, even if it is wrong, or not consciously done. The same with all the other 5, or 6, if we include kinesthetics, knowing where our body is in relation to itself.

Even though the brain is an electro-chemical organ, the discrete actions of stimulus/response of brain cells, much as found in bacteria, is not observation. Observation occurs from the brain functioning at a high level, detecting, analyzing, comparing, sorting through possibilities, then coming to a conclusion that transcends the stimulus/response of the individual cells.

there is all sorts of metaphysical/quantum nonsense that people get into, but that is not science and therein, all nonsense is equal. Science, good science, weeds out the nonsense, and all theories are not equal.

btw, you do not need to be a "specialist" to discern illogical or irrational thought/ideas. It takes some experience, and it really helps if one is born with a built in BS detector, maybe the 7th sense.... :D
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Tee » Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:52 am

can the proposed 5 senses actually be construed as 1 sense, with 5 avenues of input...

seeing is observing, the light hits the back of our eye and observations begin...

but, if observing something, changes it, as i have read some have proposed...

the change would have to happen after the fact, and my understanding is, the change is gonna hafta happen at the same time, if not before?...

back to the senses...

seeing is light waves...
hearing is sound waves...
touching is magnetic forces?...
tasting is chemical interaction at a intermingled level?...
smelling is the same thing?...

these are all observations of our environment, 1 sense, with 5 avenues of input?...
tell all the truth, but tell it slant... Emily Dickinson
Tee
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:08 pm
Location: Western Canada

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:14 am

Tee, if that is what you want to believe, 5 detectors to one sense, then that is not science confirmed, and at my stage of understanding, can not accept it. My previous post explained my position, and i am sorry it was not written clearly enough.

to comment on another subject that you offered,
but, if observing something, changes it, as i have read some have proposed...


Yes, i understand where you got that, and it is a generalization of a specific phenomenon, that of intercepting particles in order to measure their qualities, ie., you can intercept a particle to measure it's speed, or mass, but that process, by the very nature of it, changes it's speed. To generalize that specific "observation" into a general rule , such as observing a rock by looking at it, that somehow that looking changes the rock is nonsense. In fact, i read somewhere that energetic particles can now be detected without changing them.

I have answered your questions to the limit of my understanding. Maybe Tina will come back in and confirm your hypothesis..

Maybe a search in neuroscience , example : http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.w ... Oe-Re9EfyA
may give you additional helpful info... ;)

GL,,,,thank you..
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Tina » Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:13 pm

Sparky wrote:Tee, if that is what you want to believe, 5 detectors to one sense, then that is not science confirmed, and at my stage of understanding, can not accept it.... Maybe Tina will come back in and confirm your hypothesis..


In a way Tee is correct - the 5 sensory detectors are classified under sensory perception. So maybe perception is a better word to encompass the experience that Tee is trying to encapsulate.
User avatar
Tina
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: NSW Australia

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Tee » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:03 am

perception, instead of sense, k...

so, is perception, observation...

can you observe without perceiving, can you perceive without observing...

gonna think on that one today...

ty for your input...

and pardon my spelling, half the time i get the, "ei/ie thing right, half the time i dont...
and ya, ive heard of spellcheck...

they showed it to me in gradeschool, was called a dictionary...

; )~...
tell all the truth, but tell it slant... Emily Dickinson
Tee
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:08 pm
Location: Western Canada

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Sparky » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:11 am

Tina wrote:
Sparky wrote:Tee, if that is what you want to believe, 5 detectors to one sense, then that is not science confirmed, and at my stage of understanding, can not accept it.... Maybe Tina will come back in and confirm your hypothesis..


In a way Tee
is correct - the 5 sensory detectors are classified under sensory perception. So maybe perception is a better word to encompass the experience that Tee is trying to encapsulate.


So? What is "sensory perception" classified under? As i understand "perception", it too requires cognition. So adding another word which can be defined as observation, how does that help? the problem is not understanding that observation/perception as a cognition, ie., a brain processing information. :roll:

observe: Observe, imply paying strict attention to what one sees or perceives.



perception:
1.
the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.

cognition is involved.

2.
immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception.

again, the mind at work on some level, using detected information through one or more sense organs.

3.
the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.

does this not mean use of mind, even though they make a distinction between product and act. there is that sneaky ole mind at work again, sorting sensory things out, combining them, assigning priorities, cognition, etc.....

1. The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.

2. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.


well, no 2 here is what i have been talking about...

My position has been stated as clearly as i can... i see no evidence or logic that 5 senses are always combined into 1 is supported by any science. There is some combining in the brain to give an impression, but they can always, by using cognition, be differentiated.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Tee » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:29 am

im not trying to combine them, they are obviously different at a certain focus level, if you were to zoom out though, at some point, on the information root/trunk/branch/leaf/path would they all have the same origin...

is observation, interaction?

are our senses actually, at the root, one act, observation...

are single celled organisms observers...

is life, interaction?...
non life interacts as well, but life interacts with intent...
is life, intention?...

i think these are all broad generalizations that i want to understand better, before i head further down that path/s...

and heres another one, focus levels, just like a microscope, 1x 5x 10x 100x 1000000x...

call the medium we exist in as 1x, cuz thats where we are and its easy...
when we look at things that our outside of our regular experience, we are unfamiliar with them, if we see things we dont understand, we get spooked, or curious, mebbe both, depending on who you want to be...

heard of, "spooky action,"? action at a distance, we refer to it as spooky action, why? because it spooks us, were not familiar with it in that way...
ever thrown a rock at something and it hit it, and moved it? were you spooked? i was intrigued i bet you, but certainly not spooked...

back to focus levels and understanding, is light a particle and a wave? and if it is, who said it couldnt be?...
were they right?...
heisenberg gives us the reasoning that theres somethings, we may never know, because, thats the way it is...
is he right?...

beyond this point there be dragons, in mythos and maps, this is used to signify the unknown...
whats beyond this point? not sure, nobodys ever come back, watch yourself, might be dragons there...
until...
somebody comes back, and sez, nope, wasnt dragons, but man, watchout for that waterfall...
watchout...
the unfamiliar/impossible/unknown is only that, until, we become familiar/possible/known to it, then, it starts getting less mystical, and more empirical...

yes/no?...
tell all the truth, but tell it slant... Emily Dickinson
Tee
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:08 pm
Location: Western Canada

Re: observer effect...

Unread postby Sparky » Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:39 pm

Tee wrote:im not trying to combine them, they are obviously different at a certain focus level, if you were to zoom out though, at some point, on the information root/trunk/branch/leaf/path would they all have the same origin...


no...but if you want to look at a tree instead of the brain and it's functions..... :roll:

is observation, interaction?


It can be, but not with a rock! well, not in my world/universe. ;)

are our senses actually, at the root, one act, observation...

Each sense[detection] is at the root of observation of that sense.

are single celled organisms observers...


no, unless some mutation has produced a brain, or some other organ that can engage in cognition. ;)

is life, interaction?...

only on Sat. night, unless there is a headache.. ;)

non life interacts as well, but life interacts with intent...
is life, intention?...


Yes, too often bad.... :cry:

i think these are all broad generalizations that i want to understand better, before i head further down that path/s...


careful where you step.. :D


and heres another one, focus levels, just like a microscope, 1x 5x 10x 100x 1000000x...

call the medium we exist in as 1x, cuz thats where we are and its easy...
when we look at things that our outside of our regular experience, we are unfamiliar with them, if we see things we dont understand, we get spooked, or curious, mebbe both, depending on who you want to be...


i seldom get spooked... :roll:

heard of, "spooky action,"? action at a distance, we refer to it as spooky action, why?


i think Einstein invented that term, maybe because he new it was nonsense. The tests used to prove it were flawed.

because it spooks us, were not familiar with it in that way...
ever thrown a rock at something and it hit it, and moved it? were you spooked? i was intrigued i bet you, but certainly not spooked...


:roll:


back to focus levels and understanding, is light a particle and a wave? and if it is, who said it couldnt be?...
were they right?...


probably a particle that can be detected as a wave because of detection environment. Miles Mathis makes a good argument for a mass particle and against a photon wave.

heisenberg gives us the reasoning that theres somethings, we may never know, because, thats the way it is...
is he right?...


Yup.. ;)

beyond this point there be dragons, in mythos and maps, this is used to signify the unknown...
whats beyond this point? not sure, nobodys ever come back, watch yourself, might be dragons there...
until...
somebody comes back, and sez, nope, wasnt dragons, but man, watchout for that waterfall...
watchout...


:roll:


the unfamiliar/impossible/unknown is only that, until, we become familiar/possible/known to it, then, it starts getting less mystical, and more empirical.


If we are going to state the obvious, let's do it correctly.
the unfamiliar/impossible/unknown is only that, until we become familiar/possible/known to it, then it starts getting more empirical. :D

mystical has more metaphysical meanings than the meanings of enigmatic and obscure . mystical things remain mystical for some people, even after evidence that they are not.
it is very difficult to disprove a belief to a believer.

yes/no?...


uhhh, mostly no.... 8-) inscrutable smile.

last post for today..thank you for the exercise... ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Next

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests