PLato said,"Look to the perfection of the heavens for truth," while Aristotle said "look around you at what is, if you would know the truth" To Remember: Eskesthai
I am assuming the neurobiology affect of quantum processes already is
an an example of the process itself, if it uses quantum mechanical
processes as interference.
Abstract:
Processes undergoing quantum mechanics, exhibit quantum interference
effects.In this case quantum probabilities result to be different from
classical probabilities because they contain an additional main point
that in fact is called the quantum interference term. We use ambiguous
figures to analyse if during perception cognition of human subjects we
have violation of the classical probability field and quantum
interference. The experiments, conducted on a group of 256 subjects,
evidence that we have such quantum effect. Therefore, mental states,
during perception cognition of ambiguous figures, follow quantum
mechanics.pg 2 -Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures.
-
The use of eeg machinery is already established as interferences patterns, hence, brain wave patterns?
A question that may arise is, as to the definitive state of
entanglement as an ambiguous figure. While interference affects as
ambiguous perceptions, which arise as mental patterns as wave forms
prior too? Thus, the collapse of the wave function, as an entanglement.
An indication arises from quantum mechanics. Quantum theory represents
the most confirmed and celebrated theory of science. Started in 1927 by
founder fathers as Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and Pauli, it has
revolutionized our understanding of the physical reality in both
scientific and epistemological fields.pg 5
The image recognition could be characterized by synchronization of
firings in a neural network responsible for image recognition. Such a
synchronization may be conceived as a stabilization to a fixed frequency
of firings, and thus can be considered as a version of the collapse of
the wave function. pg 8
Ambiguous perception. A good example is bistable perception, which concerns alternating views of ambiguous figures, such as the Necker cube. Atmanspacher, Filk, and R€omer (2004) and Atmanspacher and Filk (2010) developed a detailed model describing a number of psychophysical features of bistable perception that have been experimentally demonstrated. In addition, Atmanspacher and Filk (2010, 2013) predicted that particular distinguished states in bistable perception may violate the temporal Bell inequalities—a litmus test for quantum behavior. Other research applying quantum theory to perception of ambiguous figures has been carried out by Conte et al. (2009).pg 9 -http://www.thedocc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/J18.-Wang-et-al-2013-quantum-cognition.pdf
The lines can change perspective and position.... as if the cube is protruding outward or inward(The
orientation of the Necker cube can also be altered by shifting the
observer's point of view. When seen from apparent above, one face tends
to be seen closer; and in contrast, when seen from a subjective
viewpoint that is below, a different face comes to the fore) as to describe it's geometric shape. Other examples here can be found(Rubin's vase -(These
types of stimuli are both interesting and useful because they provide
an excellent and intuitive demonstration of the figure–ground
distinction the brain makes during visual perception.).
The Necker cube is used in epistemology (the study of knowledge) and provides a counter-attack against naïve realism.
Naïve realism (also known as direct or common-sense realism) states
that the way we perceive the world is the way the world actually is. The
Necker cube seems to disprove this claim because we see one or the
other of two cubes, but really, there is no cube there at all: only a
two-dimensional drawing of twelve lines. We see something which is not
really there, thus (allegedly) disproving naïve realism. This criticism
of naïve realism supports representative realism. Necker cube -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necker_cube#Epistemology
Bold added to emphasize, direct and indirect
realism- a dualism I believe occurs here, points toward the foundation,
as Bohr looking at William James which lead to Heisenberg Uncertainty
principal(Quantum Cognition and Bounded Rationality PG 27 to Pg
30)....and other assumptions.
There are no phenomenological experiments to suggest quantum cognition
is real other then to see how the model works in relation too, questions
and answers, or, to declare entanglement as a self evident state in my
view.
The
Necker cube is a paradigmatic example for bistable perception where
pattern reversal obeys a particular probability distribution.
Atmanspacher, Filk and Römer (2004) discussed this switching dynamics in
terms of the quantum Zeno effect where “observation” (here attending to
a percept) increases the dwell-time of an otherwise fast decaying
unobserved state. Quantum Cognition, Bistable perception
Regarding consciousness then.
For example, subjects who stare continuously at a Necker cube usually
report that they experience it "flipping" between two 3D configurations,
even though the stimulus itself remains the same.[72] The objective is
to understand the relationship between the conscious awareness of
stimuli (as indicated by verbal report) and the effects the stimuli have
on brain activity and behavior. In several paradigms, such as the
technique of response priming,.[73] the behavior of subjects is clearly influenced by stimuli for which they report no awarenessConsciousness -
Awareness as irrationality shows then, that such information as to
reaching our cognitive status as irrationality, can move to identify
with a self evident position. This may help to show the process of
inductive deductive relationship which leads to an over arching position
as to being self evident. Aristotle, did not jettison Plato.
The first, “contextuality,” is a way to understand interference effects found with inferences and decisions under conditions of uncertainty. The second, “quantum entanglement,” allows cognitive phenomena to be modelled in non-reductionist ways. Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision (PDF)
Yes contextualization matters, and it is not just the math, but avenues to understanding depth psychology. This distinction was pointed out twice on rationality with regard perception and Jung, as it was written by Blutner ( -http://www.blutner.de ) One might find some information on his personal interests that I presented as a paper written by him that might help.
I did not mention his interest to music for further research (Modelling tonal attraction: Tonal hierarchies, interval cycles, and quantum probabilities.)
I mentioned the Necker Cube for a reason. If it is not an entangle state what does contextual mean? "Spread out" as if a parable? What is the essence of the parable as it is taken to mean to you becomes the entangled state. What did you get from it? Alternating back and forth the Necker Cube becomes an example of this process to say, how one can transfer back and forth between contextualize and the entanglement.
In the present literature, there are several approaches that seek for a general justification of quantum probabilities in the context of cognitive science. For example, Kitto (2008) considers very complex systems such as the growth and evolution of natural languages and other cultural systems and argues that the description of such systems cannot be separated from their context of interaction. She argues that quantum interaction formalisms provide a natural model of these systems “because a mechanism for dealing with such contextual dependency is inbuilt into the quantum formalism itself”. Hence, the question of why quantum interaction is necessary in modelling cognitive phenomena is answered by referring to its nature as a complex epistemic system.Quantum Cognition -
It is widely accepted that consciousness or, more generally, mental activity is in some way correlated to the behavior of the material brain. Since quantum theory is the most fundamental theory of matter that is currently available, it is a legitimate question to ask whether quantum theory can help us to understand consciousness. Several programmatic approaches answering this question affirmatively, proposed in recent decades, will be surveyed. It will be pointed out that they make different epistemological assumptions, refer to different neurophysiological levels of description, and use quantum theory in different ways. For each of the approaches discussed, problematic and promising features will be equally highlighted.Quantum Approaches to Consciousness -
As related earlier, if it's not in the brain where and how is quantum theory being used?
Thinking means evaluating information or ideas rationally and logically. Jung called this a rational function, meaning that it involves decision making or judging, rather than the simple intake of information. Feeling, like thinking, is a matter of evaluating information, this time by weighing one’s overall emotional response. Sensing means what it says: getting information by means of the senses. A sensing person is good at looking and listening and generally getting to know the world. Jung called this an irrational function, meaning that it involved perception rather than judgment of information. INtuiting is a kind of perception that works outside of the usual conscious processes. It is irrational or perceptual, like sensing, but comes from the complex integration of large amounts of information, rather than simple seeing or hearing. Jung said it was like seeing around corners.4 Two qubits for C.G. Jung’s theory of personality R. Blutner, E. Hochnadel / Cognitive Systems Research 11 (2010) 243–259 (pdf)
The contextualization of this example above in quote may help to see how
Quantum Cognition is understood from my perspective. If you are aware
of such a state as INtuiting, and if irrationality is to be
discerned from such an examination, how is it possible to receive the
understanding as, "judgement and decision, and even belief, before it
is made. Before one becomes entangled? To withhold Judgement, as if to
exist in such a state, means that information, is retained, as if a
parable, and while holding the information "in that state," aware of
what can happen if you become entangled?
Fig. 1. Two pairs of opposite psychological functions: Thinking and
Feeling [rational opposites], Sensation/iNtuition [irrational opposites].
Jung takes this two-dimensional representation in order to demonstrate
the dependencies between the psychological functions. For example,
Thinking and Feeling are opposites and conflict with each other (assuming
one fixed attitude). However, their effect can be modified by using the
irrational functions (Sensation and iNtuition, respectively). The numbers
enumerate eight sectors in dependence of what are the two dominant
functions (see Table 1 and the associated text for more explanations). See Paper above for information
One has to know in advance that such a decision entangles and that the understanding of the Necker cube in advance, gives an alternating relation of the parable and entanglement, as a choice before the entanglement happens.
***
In abstraction, information is liken too, the ability to gather information. You are not making a decision other then to present the equation as a source of information. This is currently be described as the quantifiable. It is a parable of sorts, until, the equation leads to a pure state. A self evident state. Then, you are entangled.
So are people just incapable of thinking logically? Maybe. But in recent years a number of investigators have developed the view that those supposedly irrational choices merely reflect the fact that people’s brains are guided by the mathematical principles of quantum physics. Quantum math makes human irrationality more sensible
Now you must understand while this supposed question of the understanding behind a Platonist heaven has some place here in the conversation, I had been pushing forward. I am of course interested in the science, so as to understand reality. So what follows has been on the books of metaphysics for sometime it seems. I want to clarify these thoughts and ideas in context of today's science. What is truth and what is not.
This video had been cut to form "another video." It is important to see how this was done. Go to the time of the original video on display of 20:15 and see where this continues in second video.
Perception, is an interesting subject.
Yet
logically another non-dual option remains, namely virtualism, that a
mind-independent, non-physical reality outputs the physical world
by processing. In this admittedly radical view, the "ghostly" world of quantum theory is
real and the physical world is like a screen image thrown up The Virtual Reality Conjecture -http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1110/1110.3307.pdf
On page 16 of VR conjecture I noticed a link at bottom of page that lead me to a video that I thought interesting. But, at the same time, the end, was quite shocking( See: The Real Absolute Being at 20:15)
The shift over to a universal permanence by name, had me wondering how
many had jumped the gun, to have given this reality, a name? Advanced
the issue of religion, as was entitled by name to see that it occupied,
as if a place. A place in Plato's Heaven. So you choose who by name
your (Absolute Real Being), Metaphysics has then lead us to this?
But honestly, you have to see the first part up to 20:15 and especially
at 15:26 with regard to the perceived. Now, how guilty should I have
been to see that I held some similar belief, that I may refer to the
Platonist heaven as a function of the wave, now sees some Islamic
fundamentalism that takes hold. No, it does not have to go by the name
of Allah as it is spoke of by inference as that of the Holy Grail, in
original video?
So while having been deflected as to follow a link on a page, the real
issue here is what the first part of the video is speaking too. Any
problems with this to help identify the Self?
Now of course how this video was used is important. The issue of Quantum cognition is important to see some perspectives as they have been revealed as metaphysical as well an understanding that we are in need of qualifying the process of sight, as issues of Quantum Theory?
***
Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision
Much of our understanding of human thinking is based on probabilistic models. This innovative book by Jerome R. Busemeyer and Peter D. Bruza argues that, actually, the underlying mathematical structures from quantum theory provide a much better account of human thinking than traditional models. They introduce the foundations for modelling probabilistic-dynamic systems using two aspects of quantum theory. The first, “contextuality,” is a
way to understand interference effects found with inferences and decisions under conditions of uncertainty. The second, “quantum entanglement,” allows cognitive phenomena to be modelled in non-reductionist ways. Employing these principles drawn from quantum theory allows us to view human cognition and decision in a totally new light. Introducing the basic principles in an easy-to-follow way, this book does not assume a physics background or a
quantum brain and comes complete with a tutorial and fully worked-out applications in important areas of cognition and decision.Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision -
In relation to the parable and what is distinct in the parable, was an example that I thought to bring forward as I understood it. This help me to see how quantum cognition is used(contextualized and entangled") and are looked at. Without a reductionist view, entangled takes on new meaning as to make a judgement or a decision. To make a distinction, means that in the parable you have decided, while interference, is a type of wave.
The necker Cube is important here.
The Necker cube is used in epistemology (the study of knowledge) and provides a counter-attack against naïve realism. Naïve realism (also known as direct or common-sense realism) states that the way we perceive the world is the way the world actually is. The Necker cube seems to disprove this claim because we see one or the other of two cubes, but really, there is no cube there at all: only a two-dimensional drawing of twelve lines. We see something which is not really there, thus (allegedly) disproving naïve realism. This criticism of naïve realism supports representative realism. Necker cube -
Bold added to emphasize, direct and indirect realism.
Again, I am not qualified to the extent to say parable is a good example, but, I think this will help greatly to look at as an example and the Necker cube, as given in the following quotes.
The Necker cube is a paradigmatic example for bistable perception where pattern reversal obeys a particular probability distribution. Atmanspacher, Filk and Römer (2004) discussed this switching dynamics in terms of the quantum Zeno effect where “observation” (here attending to a percept) increases the dwell-time of an otherwise fast decaying unobserved state. Quantum Cognition, Bistable perception -
I think by giving examples one might understand this better, and I wonder if there are others who understand, who can help describe the physics of, in the way it was here. Quantum theory is essential here then. Judgement and decisions, are entangled states.
