Do you believe what you claim to believe?

[Resha Caner]

Hmm. I think we still have some terminology issues. I realize I'm probably using a few words differently from what you expect, so I don't mind clarifying. Still, this comes across to me as:

... Yes, it could work, because, "I wouldn't be overly surprised if some high-level quantum effect was found to enhance the efficiency of a particular feature of neural function - perhaps tunnelling in synaptic transmission or some such (after all, we use such features in silicon microchips, and quantum effects have been used elsewhere in biological systems), but last I heard, there's no credible evidence or requirement for this in the brain, and there's no plausible special connection with consciousness."

... But, no it can't work, because, "Bear in mind that quantum field theory, not to mention thermodynamics, tells us nothing like that is feasible, and if you posit something non-physical, you run into the interaction problem."

So, let me make one correction. I have posited something physical, yet non-material. That is not in keeping with your statement about the "non-physical."

Further, let me venture a guess. Are you thinking my assertion with regard to the butterfly effect violates thermodynamics by creating energy or something like that? I don't think so. First, the butterfly effect doesn't have to mean an increase in the magnitude of the response. Rather, there are multiple paths of equal potential and the variation in the initial conditions changes the resultant path. It is possible, however, that these different paths would exhibit differences in the magnitude of the response if there were a consequent release of potential energy. The "domino effect" is an example of that. You may have seen people initiate a series of dominoes where each one is successively larger. That works because of the potential energy stored in the dominoes. Were the potential not there, no domino effect would result. Finally, as you mentioned, there is always tunnelling, where QM can explain an event classical physics says shouldn't happen.

On the other hand, we can elicit experiences described as spiritual, revelatory, mind-expanding, unifying, sense of presence, etc., in a number of ways, and they can also accompany seizures in certain brain areas, e.g. temporal lobe epilepsy.

It can happen in a number of ways, yes. That is what I discussed in post #159. If you would like to participate in that, feel free. However, we've now reached that typical point where I'm accused of appealing to the gaps. I find that disingenuous for several reasons: First, hypotheses almost always appeal to the gaps. Newton was appealing to the gaps, Einstein was appealing to the gaps, etc. It is only a fallacy if one claims to have proved something by appealing to the gaps. I'm not claiming I've proved anything, nor will I prove anything here. What I have said remains a hypothesis.

Second, this reminds me of a discussion about astrology. (Disclaimer: Like the author, I don't believe in astrology: Science Confirms Astrology) Many dismiss astrology without knowing whether it has actually been falsified or not. They simply choose not to believe it (for whatever reason). Anyone who would propose a scientific study of astrology would probably be laughed out of the room: "If you don't believe in astrology, why test it? If you do believe it, there is likely to be a confirmation bias. Funding a test just ain't gonna happen." I find it disingenuous to make some statement that "astrology isn't scientific" without thinking about whether it could actually be tested. If one has tried, and can't think of a way to test astrology, then it would be valid not to proceed. It would even be valid to say that it's simply not a high priority - that you would rather spend your resources elsewhere ...

... but you're here talking to me about spirit.

 

[stevenfrancis]

I guess the question if two-fold:

1) Religion tends to take a "wholesale" approach to belief. For example, most of Christians don't get to pick and choose what they agree or disagree with.

Religious systems tend to resemble political parties. When you are given label X, it means you claim believe in A, B, and C ... usually via some affirmation of faith or some creed.

BUT, it's an extremely odd way to approach any belief system, especially ones that don't provide evidence other than a claim through some isolated verses in the Bible.

I'm not sure I agree with your opening premise. I'll need more study on the philosophical underpinnings of the premise. I am best at relating things such as this on my own personal life experience. It is easiest to speak on things that you have experienced or at least personally thought about a great deal. Let me first say where I am AT. I am approaching 60 years old. I ended up, to my amazement, and the amazement of anyone who ever knew me, an orthodox Catholic Christian. Until about 2004, I would have self identified as a "Buddhist". However, on reflection,that wasn't entirely true. I was an ecclectic hodge podge of all of what I considered to be the "good ideas" from about a hundred different religious and philosophical paths. I was a religion unto myself, as was my father before me, and a good number of people I meet these days. My customized, personalized religion contained entirely changeable ideas from Jodo Shinshu, Mahayana, Carlos Castaneda, Scientology, Lifespring, EST, Synanon, Ayn Rand, 4 Square, Baptist, Lutheran, Taoist, Ruth Montgomery, Edgar Cayce, Urantia Book, Oprah Winfrey, Unitarian, Judaism, and a sprinkle of the "Jesus Freak" movement. There would have been even more, if I had discovered more and spent time reading deeply about it. In short, I was probably the ideal of what you are speaking above in your premise of what religion should be.

By accepting some of everything, I soon discovered that I was standing for nothing and ready to fall for anything. My life, my beliefs, my systems, and everything about me was broken apart and blown away by the simple act of sincerely listening for the call of Christ, and when I felt/heard His knock at the door, finally letting Him in to my world. A genuine encounter with the Christ who is the Lord of the Universe, who is in-fact God almighty, is life changing, and I could and will write a book one day about the whole conversion process.

My life up until 2004 was forfeit. I kept only love of the Father, through Jesus Christ, by the Power of the Holy Spirit. My whole focus changed from what sounded "good to me", to how I might discover what God's will for me is, and how I might live that out for the rest of my earthly life, so that I can be with Him eternally in love, since God IS love.

Besides the emotional high of conversion, I was left with an intense interest in knowledge and wisdom regarding this Jesus, who was finally guiding my life. Enter reason. So, now I narrowed the religious field down to Christianity. I prayed about How God communicates with man. If God is alive....if Christ is indeed risen....if the Holy Spirit was indeed sent my Christ upon the apostles at Pentecost etc., then long story short, I came to believe that Jesus Christ left the Holy Spirit with all of us in a general sense, and the Apostles in a specific sense. I believe He founded a Church to deliver the sacramental grace through the sacraments He instituted, until He comes again to judge us, and establish the new heavens and the new earth. I looked at the extant Christian Churches. I prayed over where the fullness of the deposit of the Christian faith most likely would reside. Starting with the Gospels about Jesus, the Acts of the Apostles, the letters, the Revelation, then moving forward through to the Didache, the Apostolic fathers, the Church fathers, Apostolic Succession, etc. etc. the establishment of the "sees", and decided by prayer, study, faith and reason that the full deposit of the Christian faith resides in either the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, or both. They can both point back all the way to Jesus and the Apostles. I then went on personally to decide on the Catholic Church, Latin/Roman rite, and after an inquiry period, a candidate period, and much discernment, and prayer was brought into full communion with the Church, and was sealed in confirmation by the Holy Spirit on the Easter Vigil of 2006, at 49 years old. Whew.....home at last.

Why did I go through all that? So that I could point out that Jesus in fact wanted His followers to be ONE. He prays for it for a full chapter of the Gospel of John. What does that oneness mean? It has meant to the fathers, apostolic successors, popes, doctors and saints of the Church that we are in fact ONE mystical body of Jesus Christ. A creed was developed by Church councils which addressed the major heresies, and gave the members of the Church a single set of principles which are of great importance to the very essence of what it means to even BE a "Christian"....that is a follower and believer of the incarnation of God on Earth, Jesus Christ.

I came to believe on Jesus, who points me to the Church He established to address concerns and questions which are natural to occur, and am now deeply relieved to not be having to look into, or look for anything new again, until the Lord Himself comes to collect His mystical body, and consummate His marriage with His eternal bride, the Church, in the eternal Kingdom of the new heaven and new earth.

Question #1: Do you see such approach as viable means of approaching the subject of belief... i.e. with partisan adherence? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about religious belief as individual concept instead of as collective one?

It makes some sense only the context of "the searcher". See above. It is how I lived my life until, by the grace of God, Jesus Christ was revealed to me. Now, I only wish to do His will, (though I veer quite often). If all the different tracks were still a part of my life, I wouldn't have the road map to even know when I HAVE veered from the course, which is His will for me. Thanks to the creeds and trust/faith in His Church, I always have a true north with which to check myself and my progress towards Heaven.

Question #1: If you do claim to hold a set of certain beliefs reflective of a broader scope of religion, then how do you justify acting inconsistently with the broader scope of these beliefs?

I don't so much "justify" acting inconsistently, apart from realizing that when I do act inconsistently with my beliefs, I am wrong, and need to correct it, and when I act consistently with my beliefs, I am right, and need to stay with that course to the extent possible as a fallen human being, and a sinner. The grace of Jesus Christ offered in the reception of absolution through reconciliation, and the reception of the very being of Jesus Christ in the most Holy Eucharist are graces instituted by our Lord to help us on our way.

If I've asked you "How can I know that you believe what you believe and not merely adhering to a cultural pattern due to 10% overlap in your personal belief and 90% peer pressure"... what would your answer be?

My beliefs, if considered from the incarnation only, have already endured as a comprehensive system and endured countless "cultures" and even whole civilizations for 2,000 years so far. If counting the Judaism which the incarnation fulfilled, then the belief system has survived various cultures and civilizations and peer pressures for something like 6,000 years. Pretty good track record, and pretty steady state and reliable system, yes?

 

[devolved]

What is interesting is that whatever the source, the abstract idea emerges from the physical construct, i.e. it is not dependent upon the physical properties of that construct because, as we established, it can be represented any number of ways. It's not even dependent on time or distance. Whether you hear an abstract idea directly from the cheerleader, or over the phone, or in an Internet forum, or by reading it in a book 10 years later on a different continent doesn't change that the abstract idea has been transmitted to you. If you don't agree that is some kind of transcendence - maybe only a weak transcendence - but if you don't agree, I've no confidence there is anything that could ever convince you.

Ok, I think it would be a lot more productive to focus on the issue above.

Sure, it's "transcendent" in a sense that it transcends any given mind, but that's a "memetic" issue. It's still a form of some kind of physical impact of the world around us that we recognize as a pattern and interpret accordingly.

Perhaps you can expand on this concept, because I'm not quite sure how the idea of a spirit fits into it? Do you interpret concept of a "spirit" as some occultist would think of eggregore (see below), or perhaps a more modern concept of meme? It's just very difficult to follow as to what exactly you are trying to say. I'm trying to fill in the gaps, so just correct me if I'm wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore

But let's walk through the possibilities. We have the reception of a physical construct in the brain that is interepreted by a person as a spiritual experience. Step 1: Is it possible to exclude either an external or internal source for that physical construct for all cases?

I think that's where I have to point you to a method, and generally method can be just as important than a claim in question. I wanted to avoid to derailing the discussion about how scientific reports are more than a testimony, but largely a disclosure of a method which we can evaluate and find being supported or not... but that's a side issue.

For example, when we are discussing historical accuracy of accounts, we don't really ask questions like "is it really possible to exclude possibility of extra-ordinary claims?". We are not really concerned with possibilities as much we concerned with likelihood and plausibility, and these concepts are driven by a wider range of contextual evidence and methodology than the claim itself.

There are a couple of things to ponder here:

1) The problem with possibility is that it's not the reality. It's a model of reality that exists as a proposition, or a construct. Thus, possibility will always be secondary to plausibility and probability. Plausibility and probability take into account the reality that we observe and see if our experience of reality fits the model that's being presented.


2) If I would construct the scale of relevant concepts here, it would be: possible > plausible -> probable > likely , in that order.

Thus, the question of science isn't really about possible explanations, but about the most likely explanations. Hence it's more or less a methodological battle as to which methodology and philosophical disposition would produce the most likely explanations.

Generally, the most reliable methodology will produce the best possible predictions about reality, and will build the best models of reality.

Poor methodologies will do the opposite. These will not produce consistent or reliable models of reality.

You've mentioned Astrology and when we dive through Philosophy of Science, it's really difficult to pin down as to what exactly makes Astrology a pseudoscience. I won't go through all of the Science Philosophy 101, which you are probably well aware of, but what separates Astrology as a pseudoscience is a less reliable methodology.

Hence reliable method is what would separate what we'd label pseudoscience and science.

Is it possible to exclude external or internal causes for claims of supernatural experiences? No, not really. These claim survive precisely because these tend to be unfalsifiable (in a methodological sense). The better question and method though is not whether it's possible, but as to what is more likely. And such method demands evaluating a much wider range of data and evidence than the claim itself.

 

[devolved]

Further, let me venture a guess. Are you thinking my assertion with regard to the butterfly effect violates thermodynamics by creating energy or something like that? I don't think so. First, the butterfly effect doesn't have to mean an increase in the magnitude of the response. Rather, there are multiple paths of equal potential and the variation in the initial conditions changes the resultant path. It is possible, however, that these different paths would exhibit differences in the magnitude of the response if there were a consequent release of potential energy. The "domino effect" is an example of that. You may have seen people initiate a series of dominoes where each one is successively larger. That works because of the potential energy stored in the dominoes. Were the potential not there, no domino effect would result. Finally, as you mentioned, there is always tunnelling, where QM can explain an event classical physics says shouldn't happen.

How could we determine whether this cause is a spirit, or it's merely some form of "misfiring" effect that leads to similar unfolding domino chain, or if it's entirely something else?

I'll stress it again below, but methodology is more important then the conclusion in scientific discourse. If methodology is flawed, then conclusion is likely flawed too.

Many dismiss astrology without knowing whether it has actually been falsified or not. They simply choose not to believe it (for whatever reason). Anyone who would propose a scientific study of astrology would probably be laughed out of the room: "If you don't believe in astrology, why test it? If you do believe it, there is likely to be a confirmation bias. Funding a test just ain't gonna happen." I find it disingenuous to make some statement that "astrology isn't scientific" without thinking about whether it could actually be tested. If one has tried, and can't think of a way to test astrology, then it would be valid not to proceed. It would even be valid to say that it's simply not a high priority - that you would rather spend your resources elsewhere

Again, one doesn't need to test astrology, but merely have to look at the proposed methodology which astrology utilizes. If the methodology is flawed, then conclusions are likely flawed too. It relates to all branches of science and pseudoscience.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Yes, it could work, because, "I wouldn't be overly surprised if some high-level quantum effect was found to enhance the efficiency of a particular feature of neural function - perhaps tunnelling in synaptic transmission or some such (after all, we use such features in silicon microchips, and quantum effects have been used elsewhere in biological systems), but last I heard, there's no credible evidence or requirement for this in the brain, and there's no plausible special connection with consciousness."

... But, no it can't work, because, "Bear in mind that quantum field theory, not to mention thermodynamics, tells us nothing like that is feasible, and if you posit something non-physical, you run into the interaction problem."

I don't know what you mean by "it could / can't work" - what is 'it'?. The first part you refer to was just my acknowledgement that macro-scale QM effects could conceivably enhance specific neural function at a molecular level. It's thought that this kind of thing happens in photosynthesis and in the directional sense of robins; interesting, but not paradigm-shifting.

The second part was specifically related to ideas of spirit or soul other than classical brain function, e.g. some sort of coherent field or force that connects with or influences the brain.

So, let me make one correction. I have posited something physical, yet non-material. That is not in keeping with your statement about the "non-physical."

You'll have to clarify what you mean - if you're suggesting a physical field or force then, for reasons already covered, it could only be electromagnetism.

Are you thinking my assertion with regard to the butterfly effect violates thermodynamics by creating energy or something like that?

No, not at all. My comment was regarding some kind of 'external' spirit or soul. It's still not clear to me how you think the butterfly effect could be relevant in this context. Chaotic activity may well occur in the brain, but so what?

Finally, as you mentioned, there is always tunnelling, where QM can explain an event classical physics says shouldn't happen.

Sure, but again, so what? how would a molecular scale effect like that be relevant?

It can happen in a number of ways, yes. That is what I discussed in post #159. If you would like to participate in that, feel free. ... What I have said remains a hypothesis.

From what I can make out, #159 appears to be discussing how the brain represents or processes abstract concepts, yes? I can't see a hypothesis there - can you point me to it, or make it explicit?

Second, this reminds me of a discussion about astrology. (Disclaimer: Like the author, I don't believe in astrology: Science Confirms Astrology) Many dismiss astrology without knowing whether it has actually been falsified or not. They simply choose not to believe it (for whatever reason). Anyone who would propose a scientific study of astrology would probably be laughed out of the room: "If you don't believe in astrology, why test it? If you do believe it, there is likely to be a confirmation bias. Funding a test just ain't gonna happen." I find it disingenuous to make some statement that "astrology isn't scientific" without thinking about whether it could actually be tested. If one has tried, and can't think of a way to test astrology, then it would be valid not to proceed. It would even be valid to say that it's simply not a high priority - that you would rather spend your resources elsewhere ...

Astrology has been tested (and found wanting), many times. See, for example, Tests of Astrology.

... but you're here talking to me about spirit.

And I'm not sure whether you mean, "the prevailing or typical quality, mood, or attitude of a person, group", as in 'team spirit', or something akin to, 'the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul', as in 'body, mind, & spirit'. There has been talk of the former, but also mention of the 'soul', as something immaterial yet physical.

Just what is your hypothesis?

 

[Resha Caner]

Ok, I think it would be a lot more productive to focus on the issue above.

Actually, I don't think it will be productive. I don't mean that to be dismissive, but my reasons for saying it are the same as for my reply below to Frumious.

Just what is your hypothesis?

I don't think it will help to restate it. For some reason we aren't communicating very well. I've tried to take a few guesses at why that is, but it feels like even my guesses at possible communication gaps only result in misunderstanding mounting upon misunderstanding.

If it's my fault ... OK.

... macro-scale QM effects could conceivably enhance specific neural function at a molecular level ...

I will, however, try asking at least one more question. One of the QM effects you mentioned was tunneling. What causes tunneling, and would you expect that tunneling in the brain is only caused by things within the brain?

 

[devolved]

I don't think it will help to restate it. For some reason we aren't communicating very well. I've tried to take a few guesses at why that is, but it feels like even my guesses at possible communication gaps only result in misunderstanding mounting upon misunderstanding.

If it's my fault ... OK.

I think it would be helpful to at least have some consolidated statement of hypothesis and nothing else in a rather concise manner. The fact that two people here don't really understand what your hypothesis is in terms of verbalizing it as a statement... in the very least points out that you are not doing a very good job explaining it as a coherent hypothesis.

Let me attempt to formulate one for you (from what I've gathered), and you can correct me where I've gone wrong, or try to follow example and formulate your own:

The reality is comprised of two distinct structures, the fundamental (which includes what's commonly known as material or physical), and spiritual, which is best described as something that exists below the threshold of physical. Spiritual has the ability to interact with fundamental and manifest in what we would label as consciousness via fundamental processes that are hard to distinguish from what we would label as "physical".

The above would be a more or less consolidated premise that at the very least presents a coherent statement. In the very least I could relate to it conceptually and attempt to understand what you are talking about. Is the above hypothesis is what you are trying to relate as the way you believe as the nature of reality? Do I understand you correctly?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think it will help to restate it.

Perhaps you could instead point me to the post where you first stated it?

What causes tunnelling, and would you expect that tunneling in the brain is only caused by things within the brain?

A quantum system, e.g. a particle, is described by its wave function, which is a probability density function that can tell you the probability of finding the particle at some point in space. When a particle is close to a barrier that, in classical terms, it has too little energy to cross, its wave function distribution will tell you it has a non-zero probability of being found on the other side; the wider the barrier, the lower the probability. When a particle is found on the other side of such a barrier, it is said to have tunnelled through. You can also view it as quantum uncertainty allowing the particle to 'borrow' the energy to cross the barrier. Given a large number of particles close to a barrier, a predictable proportion of them will tunnel through it, making a classically impermeable barrier 'leaky' in the quantum world.

Tunnelling in the brain is like tunnelling anywhere else; so tunnelling in the brain happens to particles in the brain.

Our world is, essentially, a quantum world. Tunnelling is a quantum phenomenon, it happens everywhere, all the time. It's possible that evolution has found a way to take advantage of it for specific purposes, but it's only significant over very small distances, i.e. a very short range effect.

What makes you think it might be relevant in this context, and why?

 

[Resha Caner]

What makes you think it might be relevant in this context, and why?

At this point I've put aside any thoughts on whether it's relevant or not. I'm just asking questions to lay out QM behavior in the brain. So, thanks for the explanation.

Our world is, essentially, a quantum world. Tunnelling is a quantum phenomenon, it happens everywhere, all the time.

Sure. I understand that. But I was asking if all the particles tunneling in the brain originated in the brain. How often does a particle from outside the brain pass through it? Or is absorbed by it? Or is emitted by it?

It's possible that evolution has found a way to take advantage of it for specific purposes, but it's only significant over very small distances, i.e. a very short range effect.

May I rephrase? How about, "It's possible biological systems can use tunneling for specific purposes, but it's only significant over very small distances."

A quantum system, e.g. a particle, is described by its wave function, which is a probability density function that can tell you the probability of finding the particle at some point in space. When a particle is close to a barrier that, in classical terms, it has too little energy to cross, its wave function distribution will tell you it has a non-zero probability of being found on the other side; the wider the barrier, the lower the probability.

I've never been clear on exactly what constitutes a "barrier". Is it anything that's physical? For example another particle. Would electrons absorbing photons be an example, where the electron is a barrier to the photon? So, there is a chance the photon will pass through the electron rather than being absorbed?

If so, then is every physical construct different? The air in a room is different than the wall surrounding the room is different than the table and chair in the room is different than the body of the person sitting in the chair working at the table? They all represent collections of different probabilities that a QM particle will tunnel?

 

[Resha Caner]

Do I understand you correctly?

No.

... try to follow example and formulate your own

If you insist.

The physical can be divided into two distinct categories. First, the fundamental is irreducible, always active, and thereby exhibits at least one constant or continuous property. Second, the material is an emergent form of the fundamental that can be at rest, exhibits mass and extension while at rest, and is reducible. Emergence is when properties arise in a system that are not exhibited by the parts. However, given that both categories are physical, they can interact while the fundamental retains fundamental properties and the material retains material properties.

 

[devolved]

No.
If you insist.

The physical can be divided into two distinct categories. First, the fundamental is irreducible, always active, and thereby exhibits at least one constant or continuous property. Second, the material is an emergent form of the fundamental that can be at rest, exhibits mass and extension while at rest, and is reducible. Emergence is when properties arise in a system that are not exhibited by the parts. However, given that both categories are physical, they can interact while the fundamental retains fundamental properties and the material retains material properties.

Ok, thank you for clarifying. You seemed to left out "spiritual" from this definition. Would also be an emergent form of fundamental, or is it something completely different?

 

[Resha Caner]

Ok, thank you for clarifying. You seemed to left out "spiritual" from this definition. Would also be an emergent form of fundamental, or is it something completely different?

Yes, I left it out intentionally because there seems to be a persistent interpretation that I'm claiming the spiritual as yet some third thing that is not fundamental, not material, and not physical. That is not what I'm attempting to do.

I was trying to keep discussions of "person" within some boundaries. Discussing the idea of a person tends to bring up issues of free will, etc. I was trying to avoid that. Rather, I was focusing on a self-conscious rational being with a mind that processes abstractions into action. In human beings the mind is centered in a material brain. It emerges from (transcends) the brain, but is not separate from the brain ...

... which has led to discussing QM.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...I'm just asking questions to lay out QM behavior in the brain.

QM behaviour in the brain is no different from QM behaviour anywhere else.

But I was asking if all the particles tunneling in the brain originated in the brain.

Overwhelmingly so, I would think. Strongly interacting particles can penetrate the brain if they have sufficient energy to penetrate the skull (e.g. X-rays, cosmic rays), and presumably might tunnel once inside, but they are not common occurrences; high-energy penetrating radiation is damaging, like sub-atomic scale bullets.

How often does a particle from outside the brain pass through it? Or is absorbed by it? Or is emitted by it?

That depends on the particle; trillions of neutrinos pass through the brain every second, but they have very low mass and very low interaction cross-sections, so they basically don't interact (it's said the average neutrino can pass through a light-year of lead without interacting). At the other end of the scale, cosmic rays (protons, atomic nuclei) may have considerable mass and travel at relativistic speeds, so they may penetrate and interact, leaving a trail of damage; fortunately most collide with air molecules in the upper atmosphere, so don't hit us (the Apollo astronauts reported seeing occasional flashes as cosmic rays collided in their eyes). If you have a brain X-ray, some of the particles will be absorbed and some will pass through. The brain emits long wavelength photons (thermal radiation).

In everyday life, only short wavelength electromagnetic radiation (microwaves and shorter) is likely to be significant in penetrating the brain and interacting. Microwaves can cause potentially damaging heating; shorter, higher energy particles (X-rays, gamma rays) are less frequently encountered, but can have enough energy to cause damage by ionization of atoms & molecules.

How about, "It's possible biological systems can use tunneling for specific purposes, but it's only significant over very small distances."

If you like.

I've never been clear on exactly what constitutes a "barrier". Is it anything that's physical?

QM only concerns itself with physical phenomena; how could it do otherwise? A barrier is anything that requires energy to get past (through, over). It could be a material barrier, such as a thin (<3nm) insulator between two conductors, or a potential well, such in radioactive decay. Wikipedia has some examples.

Would electrons absorbing photons be an example, where the electron is a barrier to the photon? So, there is a chance the photon will pass through the electron rather than being absorbed?

Possibly - not sure about that one - generally it's seen as the electron being at an energy level that allows it to absorb the photon (or not), or the photon having enough energy to be absorbed by the electron (or not). Absorption could be seen as tunnelling, where a photon with just too little energy to be absorbed still has a small probability of absorption due to the Uncertainty Principle. But I'm not any kind of expert, so you'd do better to ask someone who is.

If so, then is every physical construct different? The air in a room is different than the wall surrounding the room is different than the table and chair in the room is different than the body of the person sitting in the chair working at the table? They all represent collections of different probabilities that a QM particle will tunnel?

It's not so much the gross structure of the materials as the properties of their constituent atoms & molecules. Tunnelling is only significant at lengths of a few nanometres or less. It has become a problem in microelectronics, where the size of the components is now around seven nanometres and electron tunnelling means that, without careful design, they will be leaky and unreliable.

If you're really interested in QM, there are plenty of educational resources online.

 

[com7fy8]

Do you believe what you claim to believe?

The short answer to all your questions is I do not only believe what I believe, but I trust what I believe, and trust God to have me love the way my beliefs mean for me to please Him, obey Him, and relate in love with any and all people. And no my beliefs are not because of any religious groups exerting political influence on me, though I may hold various ideas in common with groups which I do not consider to be obviously for real. I see how ones can have even correct ideas, but not necessarily be discovering the love meaning.

Now . . . if anyone pleases to dig into my long answer, below . . . God bless you

I have understood that I am human, like various others; and so I know that I am capable of believing just about anything, like other humans have; and so, yes I can fool my own self, and not even know I am doing so.

So . . . I got to the point of understanding that if there is God and He pleases to have me know His truth, He is able to personally have me know what He wants me to believe. But I understood, that only God could know if it really is God communicating with me, since I am not perfect and not God. So, then I have offered myself for God to do howsoever He pleases with me, and now I am how I am and sharing what I have.

I experience God inspiring me that Jesus Christ is the Lord of all, and came to this earth in a human body and died for our sins and rose on the third day, and now rules as Lord of all. And we need to trust in Him for salvation and for all which our Heavenly Father pleases to share with us as His adopted children. And this works best by receiving how God corrects us (Hebrews 12:4-11) so we have the character to be able to tell the difference between God and not God communicating and personally effecting and guiding us. He makes us reliable to test like this, in the nature of His love which He shares with us > Romans 5:5, 1 John 4:17, Philippians 1:9. And what matters is not only getting ideas right, but how we become real in love with its immunity against cruel feelings and dominating and dictatorial emotions driving and wasting us > and, instead, Jesus gives us "rest for your souls" (Matthew 11:28-30) which we have while submitting to how God rules us in His peace and has us loving any and all people while sharing as family with one another who are His family. Without God's kind of love, we do not have the sense and strength to relate well and peacefully with various people, including in our closer relationships. So, not only do we need God to have us believing the right things, but also only God can make sure we are living in His love which is the only real love; and only God's love makes us easily able to live "without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation" (in Philippians 2:13-16).

So - - let's see about your questions

1) Religion tends to take a "wholesale" approach to belief. For example, most of Christians don't get to pick and choose what they agree or disagree with.

Religious systems tend to resemble political parties. When you are given label X, it means you claim believe in A, B, and C ... usually via some affirmation of faith or some creed.

BUT, it's an extremely odd way to approach any belief system, especially ones that don't provide evidence other than a claim through some isolated verses in the Bible.

Question #1: Do you see such approach as viable means of approaching the subject of belief... i.e. with partisan adherence? Wouldn't it make more sense to talk about religious belief as individual concept instead of as collective one?

Even though I stay ready for however God might personally give me things, still I understand that our Father is about family, and so He does use my Jesus brothers and sisters to help me get things right. We need to trust and depend on one another . . . but how God makes this work well. Being individual can be isolating with my own self and limitations which I might not see, and these shortcomings can mess with how I see things and how I choose what to believe. I need God, most of all, but also ones who are helping me get real with God and find out how to relate in His love. The main accuracy needed, then, is not only accurate ideas, but being in the right love which is in the Holy Spirit > Romans 5:5 > and having sense to tell the difference about who to trust plus how each person should be trusted.

But no I am not going to trust a whole group with people at the top, whom I do not even know personally . . . unless I sense that God has me somehow trust strangers. I trust God who knows to personally guide me according to all He knows

Question #1: If you do claim to hold a set of certain beliefs reflective of a broader scope of religion, then how do you justify acting inconsistently with the broader scope of these beliefs?

If I accept a Christian group's overall beliefs, I test each item, even so. And I evaluate each individual and not only by the fact that he or she is in a group. And I keep testing everything, in order for God to keep confirming things or to change me from something, or for Him to have me get a more mature love understanding and application of beliefs.

For example > at first, I only had an explanation of the Trinity being three Persons in One. Now I see the Trinity to show me that God is about family caring and sharing, with different persons contributing good in the same love. God is the love; and there are three family Persons of this love. Our Father and Jesus His Son are clearly family Persons . . . not the General and Lieutenant, not the Bank President and Bank Manager, not the Judge and the Prosecutor. God is personal and about family relating in love; this has become much more of what feeds my understanding of beliefs.

If I've asked you "How can I know that you believe what you believe and not merely adhering to a cultural pattern due to 10% overlap in your personal belief and 90% peer pressure"... what would your answer be?

God can use peer influence, since He does want us to share as family, helping one another to go the right way. So, it can be good to be effected by my brothers and sisters. However, I need to pray and depend on God to make me able to tell the difference between the right influence and what is not right >

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

God bless you Bill

 

[Resha Caner]

If you're really interested in QM, there are plenty of educational resources online.

OK. Sorry to pester you. I do try to educate myself, but it's always helpful to bounce things off people who have a better developed understanding. My summary of what you said would be: There are a variety of external wavicle sources that could permeate the brain. They range from highly unlikely strong interactions (that would probably be damaging) to fairly common weak interactions (that probably wouldn't make a noticable difference).

I do wonder though. In my experience it's one thing to inductively reason about such things and quite another to actually test them. Yet it seems unlikely we'd be able to place a brain in an environment free of neutrinos, etc. ... or place a brain in a particle accelerator. So, maybe speculating about it isn't worth much.

Still, for myself at least, it's a fun little exercise. For example, take the phrase "God exists." Storing that phrase into long-term memory would, from our conversation, appear to be a feat beyond the agency of QM. However, if I say it to someone, there is a chance that phrase will be stored in the person's long-term memory. They may not believe it, but the phrase is there nonetheless as episodic memory. On 15 June 2016 Caner said to me, "God exists." So, now that the structure is stored in the brain, what low-energy butterfly effect might cause it to be recalled that was not a conscious act of the person themself?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... My summary of what you said would be: There are a variety of external wavicle sources that could permeate the brain. They range from highly unlikely strong interactions (that would probably be damaging) to fairly common weak interactions (that probably wouldn't make a noticable difference).

Near enough, although the commonest particles that penetrate effectively don't interact at all (the brain couldn't function the way it does if they did).

I do wonder though. In my experience it's one thing to inductively reason about such things and quite another to actually test them. Yet it seems unlikely we'd be able to place a brain in an environment free of neutrinos, etc. ... or place a brain in a particle accelerator. So, maybe speculating about it isn't worth much.

We know the brain is made of ordinary matter, and we know that, FAPP (for all practical purposes) neutrinos don't interact even with matter many times as dense. Similarly, we know what happens to matter in the path of a particle accelerator - we even know what happens if you put your head in the path of an accelerator beam (you get serious burns - see Anatoli Bugorski).

For example, take the phrase "God exists." Storing that phrase into long-term memory would, from our conversation, appear to be a feat beyond the agency of QM. However, if I say it to someone, there is a chance that phrase will be stored in the person's long-term memory. They may not believe it, but the phrase is there nonetheless as episodic memory. On 15 June 2016 Caner said to me, "God exists." So, now that the structure is stored in the brain, what low-energy butterfly effect might cause it to be recalled that was not a conscious act of the person themself?

Why do you think a butterfly effect should be involved? The evidence suggests that (simplistically) memories are primarily stored as associative patterns of connections and strength of connections between neurons; recall involves sufficient activation of associated patterns to activate the memory 'trace' pattern above a certain threshold, and given sufficient lack of suppression of the 'circuits' involved. Evidence also suggests that we become consciously aware of most seemingly conscious acts only after they have been initiated, and generate plausible narrative to account for them.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why do you think a butterfly effect should be involved?

As I said earlier, chaos has been observed in ANNs. It appears some think it could happen in a real brain as well:
http://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/your-brain-is-on-the-brink-of-chaos
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14694754

[edit] After some more digging, it appears there is actually quite a bit of work going on in this area - both pro and con.

Just a few on the pro side:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219635206001215?journalCode=jin
http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/2007/SS-07-08/SS07-08-012.pdf

And, Penrose recently published an update defending his position:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

One that I found especially interesting was this one, because it discusses some external stimuli that are QM dependent:
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/grfgrp/Papers/2011 Fleming ProcediaChemistry3.pdf

Specifically, they include a hypothesis that the use of magnetic fields by birds for navigation can't be explained by classical magnetics, but might involve a QM mechanism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As I said earlier, chaos has been observed in ANNs. It appears some think it could happen in a real brain as well

Yes, I said that earlier. But what makes you think it might be involved in this context - why mention it unless you have some hypothesis about its contribution?

After some more digging, it appears there is actually quite a bit of work going on in this area - both pro and con.

Just a few on the pro side:
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219635206001215?journalCode=jin
http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/2007/SS-07-08/SS07-08-012.pdf

Yes, as I said earlier, we shouldn't be overly surprised to see QM effects in the brain if they're found in other biological contexts.

And, Penrose recently published an update defending his position:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

If you look past the mass of biological confetti he throws, the underlying premise is still unevidenced fanciful nonsense.

One that I found especially interesting was this one, because it discusses some external stimuli that are QM dependent:
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/grfgrp/Papers/2011 Fleming ProcediaChemistry3.pdf

Specifically, they include a hypothesis that the use of magnetic fields by birds for navigation can't be explained by classical magnetics, but might involve a QM mechanism.

Yes, I already mentioned photosynthesis and the robin's directional sense. Quantum biology is now a field in its own right, although still hotly debated. Jim Al-Khalili has written a pop-sci book on it, "Life On The Edge" (much overhyped by the publishers, as usual). As I said before, we live in an essentially quantum world, classical behaviours are emergent from that; at the molecular level, some quantum effects seem more apparent than was anticipated twenty years ago.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, I already mentioned photosynthesis and the robin's directional sense.

I remember you mentioned photosynthesis. I guess I missed that you mentioned the robin.

But what makes you think it might be involved in this context - why mention it unless you have some hypothesis about its contribution?

I got the impression you were saying QM plays no role in interacting with our environment. However, in reflecting on it, that probably stems from the nature of the questions I was asking. I realize you gave specific answers to specific questions. At the same time, I was broadening my understanding beyond my initial thoughts.

My first impression was that the photosynthesis example wasn't a big deal. Light is photons. Plants interact with light. Plants interact with photons. Big deal. The directional sense of birds seemed more relevant. However, on second thought, the photosynthesis example may be equally interesting. Our brain is aware of light striking the skin.

So, I was just trying to get at whether interacting with our environment involves the fundamental as well as the material. It seems you would agree it does.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I got the impression you were saying QM plays no role in interacting with our environment.

QM is the environment...

My first impression was that the photosynthesis example wasn't a big deal. Light is photons. Plants interact with light. Plants interact with photons. Big deal.

It's not the interaction with photons that's thought to involve an unexpected QM effect (although that is also QM in action), it's the way the electrons stimulated by them reach the reaction centre for ATP production.

The directional sense of birds seemed more relevant.

As I understand it, the QM effect there enables the effect of the magnetic field on the magnetite particles (in the eye?) to trigger a neural response.

So, I was just trying to get at whether interacting with our environment involves the fundamental as well as the material. It seems you would agree it does.

If I understood the difference between 'fundamental' and 'material' in your usage, I could give you an answer. At the lowest level, all interactions are quantum mechanical; the classical view is effectively an intuitive abstraction of that. You said 'fundamental' was a 'synonym for immaterial', but it's not clear to me what you mean by 'immaterial' either; do you mean the fundamental force-mediating bosons as opposed to the fermions that make up everyday palpable matter? if not, what?