The Central Role of Consciousness in Physics [Archive]

Tom Mattson

Sep30-03, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Darrenicus
Relativity? Quantum physics?

Yes, I know both of those theories and I stick by what I said.

Laws pertaining to the former are dependendent upon the subjective distortion of spacetime, as perceived by conciousness. Laws pertaining to the latter do so with the knowledge that a particle only behaves like a particle, when observed by conciousness.

Absolutely false.

First, relativity is not dependent on any subjective interpretation of anything. The results of relativistic calculations return the actual spacetime coordinates of events in a particular frame. To recover the subjective perception of those events, one must correct for the travel time of the speed of light. But that last part is not part of relativity at all.

Second, observations in quantum mechanics have no reference to either consciousness or knowledge. A quantum mechanical observation can be made with a lifeless detector.

Let's not forget that physics is derived by reason - a facet of human conciousness - and that mathematics itself was borne of the mind.

I think that Thanatos was referring to consciousness in theoretical physics as a subject of the theory, not the means by which theories are formulated. If so, then the above is not relevant.

I feel that you do conciousness an injustice. Not the first physicist to do so... and certainly not the last. You're a product of your era and culture. But times are moving on...

???

First, this connection between the theories of physics and consciousness that you believe exists is really just a result of your misunderstanding of the concepts of "relative" (in SR) and "observation" (in QM). That is the only thing holding your thesis together. Second, I also think you do not have a very good handle on the scientific view of consciousness. As I said in my last post, it is an emergent property. That is, material processes (as described by QM and SR) are primary, and consciousness is secondary, but you and Thanatos seem to have it exactly backwards.

Nereid

Sep30-03, 02:34 PM

Tom: ... material processes (as described by QM and SR) are primary, and consciousness is secondary, but you {Darrenicus} and Thanatos seem to have it exactly backwards.
I.e. "Consciousness is primary and material processes are secondary"
Suggestion to Thanatos and Darrenicus: please start a thread in Theory Development, in which you will show that material processes arise from consciousness.

Darrenicus

Sep30-03, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Tom
First, relativity is not dependent on any subjective interpretation of anything. The results of relativistic calculations return the actual spacetime coordinates of events in a particular frame.

Yes they do. But those predictions are derived from Einstein's work, which in turn was derived by the way we perceive the universe.
So how do we perceive the universe?
Lots to discuss there... but it's easy to argue that the predictions you discuss are just evidence of how perception is ordered within the mind's eye. Nothing else.

Second, observations in quantum mechanics have no reference to either consciousness or knowledge. A quantum mechanical observation can be made with a lifeless detector.

It has been shown that a singular electron has acted as a wave until observed, when it then acts as a particle.
And we should speak at-length about what a "lifeless detector" acually is. Later perhaps.

Second, I also think you do not have a very good handle on the scientific view of consciousness. As I said in my last post, it is an emergent property. That is, material processes (as described by QM and SR) are primary, and consciousness is secondary, but you and Thanatos seem to have it exactly backwards.
Well, given the opportunity we would argue the opposite case. We'd also like to see someone give some reason for asserting your established conclusions, rather than just listen to the assertion and be forced to accept it.
Such is philosophy.

Nereid

Sep30-03, 04:24 PM

So what's this thread doing in "Physics Forum Feedback & Announcements?"

Tom Mattson

Sep30-03, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Darrenicus
Well, given the opportunity we would argue the opposite case.

OK, post something in the Metaphysics and Epistemology Forum.

edit: Never mind; I'll just move this one.

Tom Mattson

Sep30-03, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Darrenicus
Yes they do. But those predictions are derived from Einstein's work, which in turn was derived by the way we perceive the universe.
So how do we perceive the universe?

With our senses, and by extension, man-made instruments.

Lots to discuss there... but it's easy to argue that the predictions you discuss are just evidence of how perception is ordered within the mind's eye. Nothing else.

It's a lot easier to argue that SR is more than that.

Who's mind's eye? Yes, we all have our subjective experience of reality, but those experiences are all related by one simple theory, namely relativity. The theory itself transcends anyone's personal experience, and indeed it relates them all.

It has been shown that a singular electron has acted as a wave until observed, when it then acts as a particle.
And we should speak at-length about what a "lifeless detector" acually is. Later perhaps.

A "lifeless detector" can be a geiger counter, a photometer, a current loop, etc.

Well, given the opportunity we would argue the opposite case. We'd also like to see someone give some reason for asserting your established conclusions, rather than just listen to the assertion and be forced to accept it.
Such is philosophy.

The original comment you objected to is the one in which I said that consicousness does not play a role (as in subject or object) in the theories of modern physics, and that is correct.

You may not like the current scientific viewpoint, but the simple fact is that both QM and SR are consistent with it, and that includes the viewpoint that minds are epiphenomena that emerge from more basic interactions. Saying that consciousness plays a role in QM is like saying that chemistry plays a role in QM. It gets the primary players (quantum particles and interactions) and secondary players (consciousness and chemistry, respectively) exaclty backwards.

Thanatos

Sep30-03, 10:02 PM

thanks everyone for the warm welcome. I get more impressed with this forum the more I explore... really quite remarkable that a physics forum can be so popular and thriving.

My sentiments seem along the lines of Darrenicus.

As such, I take issue with the following (naturally)

Originally posted by Tom
Perhaps, because the modern scientific view is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon that emerges from quantum processes.

(Tom, I realize you've been here awhile, and constitute an important part of this forum. I don't mean any disrespect in the following)

This is incorrect, and in fact seems rather presumptuous. The view of most neuroscientists is that mind is a function of the brain... that it's identical to a special type of activity involving populations of interacting neurons. As such, the mind is not caused by the brain, nor does it emerge from anything, but rather involves an identity. It's similar to an electromagnetic field appearing purely electric in one moving frame of reference, but also purely magnetic in a different frame of reference.... they're just different perspectives of one and the same electromagnetic field. So too with consciousness and neuronal activity... they're simply different perspectives of one and the same thing.

Originally posted by Tom

The original comment you objected to is the one in which I said that consicousness does not play a role (as in subject or object) in the theories of modern physics, and that is correct.

so you presume to know what is conscious and what is not? Maybe you can elaborate on this. Maybe you can demonstrate why activity in the cerebellum is not brought to a subject's consciousness whereas activity in the cerebrum is. By all means, please use a quantum mechanical explanation if you care to. The fact of the matter is that you can't, and so your interpretations and beliefs, which you're trying to hand-wave and present dogmatically, are unwarranted.

As for whoever attributed to me that "Consciousness is primary and material processes are secondary", I would say that this attribution is overly-simplistic and amounts to little more than a straw-man. We are all limited by our states of consciousness. For those of you who have experienced little of the vast range of consciousness, then it's easy to believe that what you experience is some accurate reflection of the 'objective world'. The 'objective world', as you perceive it, is merely a figment of your imagination. If you alter your state of consciousness, you will perceive different things, different truths, and in general, you will realize how small-minded and limited your previous conceptions of the 'objective world' are. I don't care how advanced your understanding of unified quantum field theory, string theory, or differential topology is... what you must understand is that understanding is relative. Einstein said that "All of mankinds thoughts are an insignificant reflection", and what do you suppose he meant by that? In a similar manner, all of mankinds highest states of consciousness yet experienced are like nothing compared to what is yet to be experienced and realized. I'm sure you're all familiar with the notion of a consciousness singularity, and so I won't belabor the point.... the point being that those who dismiss the centrality of consciousness are, imho, ignorant.

namaste

hypnagogue

Sep30-03, 10:44 PM

Wait... so this Darrenicus fellow got banned (already)? 3 strikes and you're out? [?]

Thanatos

Sep30-03, 10:54 PM

really? how can you tell?

hypnagogue

Sep30-03, 11:15 PM

Thanatos, I'm on your side but I'd suggest being a little more diplomatic in the tone of your argument. Being vehement or acerbic to any unwarranted degree can only turn people off to your ideas. I like what you have to say and I can understand your frustration, but you should also be wary of becoming as needlessly dismissive as some of our more textbook-oriented physics friends can sometimes tend to be. In the end those types of people only undermine their own cause, and the ideas you're talking about are too important to fall prey to so petty a fate.

Peace.

Thanatos

Sep30-03, 11:28 PM

thank you, hypnagogue.
[:)]

I've toned down the msg a bit and will exercise greater precaution here.

hypnagogue

Sep30-03, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Thanatos
really? how can you tell?

The subtext under his/her screen name reads "Cracker"... means s/he's been banned. S/he was probably a previously banned user who used a new screen name from the same IP, or at least I hope so given the hastiness of it all.

Thanatos

Sep30-03, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by hypnagogue
The subtext under his/her screen name reads "Cracker"... means s/he's been banned. S/he was probably a previously banned user who used a new screen name from the same IP

that's interesting, and unfortunate. It would've been easy to change IP though...

Iacchus32

Sep30-03, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Thanatos
this is a very nice forum, though I'm slightly disappointed that there's no neuroscience or philosophy of mind board, given the central role of consciousness underlying all theories of physics. Although consciousness doesn't impact the outcome of any physical law per se' (even if gone unrealized), it is the only means we have by which to ascertain and measure it, in which case I would agree.

In fact, I would take it a step further and say that consciousness is the very means by which the Universe gets to "know" itself.

Iacchus32

Sep30-03, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by hypnagogue
The subtext under his/her screen name reads "Cracker"... means s/he's been banned. S/he was probably a previously banned user who used a new screen name from the same IP, or at least I hope so given the hastiness of it all. Anyone here familiar with the term Lifegazerism? ... Well, it could have been ...

Thanatos

Sep30-03, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32

In fact, I would take it a step further and say that consciousness is the very means by which the Universe gets to "know" itself.

I would concur and think this is a brilliant observation. Or, another way of putting it: "We are the Universe conscious of Itself".

Iacchus32

Oct1-03, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Thanatos
I would concur and think this is a brilliant observation. Or, another way of putting it: "We are the Universe conscious of Itself". Of course this also suggests that life doesn't exist independently from the Universe, that indeed, the Universe exists to support life. In which case the Universe becomes a living organism (entity?) unto itself, and that it's main "purpose" is life.

Tom Mattson

Oct1-03, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Wait... so this Darrenicus fellow got banned (already)? 3 strikes and you're out? [?]

No, it's not like that. Darrenicus is Lifegazer under a different username.

Tom Mattson

Oct1-03, 10:25 AM

Tom: Perhaps, because the modern scientific view is that consciousness is an epiphenomenon that emerges from quantum processes.

Thanatos: This is incorrect, and in fact seems rather presumptuous.
This is incorrect, and in fact seems rather presumptuous. The view of most neuroscientists is that mind is a function of the brain... that it's identical to a special type of activity involving populations of interacting neurons. As such, the mind is not caused by the brain, nor does it emerge from anything, but rather involves an identity.

Well, I admit that all I know of cognitive science is what I read at Cog Prints, as well as from PF members who study the subject. As far as I have read, the "mind as an emergent phenomenon" is still alive and well.

But in any case, my main point that quantum phenomena are more fundamental than neural processes seems intact.

Tom: The original comment you objected to is the one in which I said that consicousness does not play a role (as in subject or object) in the theories of modern physics, and that is correct.

Thanatos: so you presume to know what is conscious and what is not? Maybe you can elaborate on this.

No, I presume to know what modern physics says and what it does not.

Maybe you can demonstrate why activity in the cerebellum is not brought to a subject's consciousness whereas activity in the cerebrum is.

I don't claim that I can explain consciousness with quantum mechanics, I claim that quantum processes are more fundamental than any cognitive function of the brain, and I further claim that consciousness does not play a role as the subject or object of any physical theory.

By all means, please use a quantum mechanical explanation if you care to. The fact of the matter is that you can't, and so your interpretations and beliefs, which you're trying to hand-wave and present dogmatically, are unwarranted.

You're right, I can't show you any of that. What's more, I don't have to. The central role of consciousness in modern physics is *your* thesis, remember? I don't need to have a complete mapping of the brain to the mind in the most fundamental degrees of freedom to object to that.

So, back to your thesis, tell me: In what way does consciousness play a central role in modern physical theories? And let's try to keep the hand waving to a minimum, please.

As for whoever attributed to me that "Consciousness is primary and material processes are secondary", I would say that this attribution is overly-simplistic and amounts to little more than a straw-man.

I said to Darrenicus that "you and Thanatos seem to have it exactly backwards". If that is not true of you, then I'm sorry I misunderstood.

We are all limited by our states of consciousness. For those of you who have experienced little of the vast range of consciousness, then it's easy to believe that what you experience is some accurate reflection of the 'objective world'.

I don't claim to have any handle on the Objective Truth. What I do claim is that Darrenicus' use of the words "observation" and "relative" are not the same as the usage of those words in quantum mechanics and relativity, repsectively. His argument is based on that misequivocation.

The rest of the post (about relative understanding and centrality of consicousness) doesn't shed any light on the connection between consciousness and modern physics, so I'll skip it.

edit: fixed a quote bracket

Les Sleeth

Oct1-03, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Thanatos
This is incorrect, and in fact seems rather presumptuous. The view of most neuroscientists is that mind is a function of the brain... that it's identical to a special type of activity involving populations of interacting neurons.

I will venture a guess why Tom says consciousness emerges from quantum processes. The materialist view, ultimately, is that all is determined by what matter's composition is . . . and the bottom line there is quantum processes. If you try to make mind a "function of the brain," you haven't gotten around the fact that the brain is composed of atoms and therefore is grounded in quantum processes.

You cannot objectively demonstrate anything more present there than the brain or neural interactions, so if one simply looks at materiality (and that's all one can observe with the senses alone), then the only thing to be observed is material processes. Since sense experience is the basis of empiricism, that is why devoted empiricists correctly state quantum processes are what have been solely demonstrated at work behind the human mind.

Originally posted by Thanatos
As such, the mind is not caused by the brain, nor does it emerge from anything, but rather involves an identity. It's similar to an electromagnetic field appearing purely electric in one moving frame of reference, but also purely magnetic in a different frame of reference.... they're just different perspectives of one and the same electromagnetic field. So too with consciousness and neuronal activity... they're simply different perspectives of one and the same thing.

Boy, I really do not understand this analogy. First you say the mind is not caused by the brain, and then you analogize it with a purely physical process. If neuronal activity and consciousness are the same, which is the defining factor? Since we know neuronal activity is physical, but we don't understand consciousness, it seems to me that we should be more inclined to call consciousness physcial, and therefore the result of quantum processes, just as Tom claims (by the way, I don't agree with Tom, I just don't think you are arguing your point effectively).

Originally posted by Thanatos
We are all limited by our states of consciousness. For those of you who have experienced little of the vast range of consciousness, then it's easy to believe that what you experience is some accurate reflection of the 'objective world'. The 'objective world', as you perceive it, is merely a figment of your imagination.

Well, what else do we have but what we experience? Personally, I find it a huge waste of time doubting my ability to achieve objectivity. I don't mind admitting I have lots to learn to perfect my reflecting "mirror" of objectivity; but since it is the only tool I have to participate in reality, I accept it as potentially capable.

Originally posted by Thanatos
If you alter your state of consciousness, you will perceive different things, different truths, and in general, you will realize how small-minded and limited your previous conceptions of the 'objective world' are.

Hmmmmmmm . . . but, if one gets older and wiser, one finds "previous conceptions" less and less further from the objective perception. It doesn't have to be that one's ability to conceptualize must be far from how objective reality is . . . one can learn and develop objective conceptualizing skills.

Originally posted by Thanatos
I don't care how advanced your understanding of unified quantum field theory, string theory, or differential topology is... what you must understand is that understanding is relative.

Why should anyone accept your assertion that materialist understanding is "is relative"? Just because you say so? Don't you think you should explain to us why that is so?

Originally posted by Thanatos
. . . of mankinds highest states of consciousness yet experienced are like nothing compared to what is yet to be experienced and realized

Proof, examples please.

Originally posted by Thanatos
I'm sure you're all familiar with the notion of a consciousness singularity,

I was not aware this idea is floating around out there . . . but I like the concept. Tell us more.

Originally posted by Thanatos
... the point being that those who dismiss the centrality of consciousness are, imho, ignorant.

What does that mean? Consciousness may be central to us, but what is it's role in physics? Do you mean that in the investigation of physical processes consciousness is central? Or do you mean consciousness has somehow played a role in the development of the physical world? Do you mean consciousness right now is part of physics?

No matter what you mean, I still think you have to make your case. You can't just say something is so without demonstrating to us how/why it works the way you say.

Mentat

Oct2-03, 03:44 PM

This problem was the reason for Tiberius' "Clarification on QM" in the Archives of the Philosophy Forum. Of course, QM is not completely understood, and thus one cannot completely clarify it for someone else. However, it can be said with certainty that consciousness has not role in quantum effects.

In the most basic of Physics textbooks, one learns that an atom is the smallest unit of a certain element that portrays the characteristics of that element. In the most basic of Biology textbooks it is understood that cells (including neurons, which are what the brain works with) are composed of many different kinds of molecules which the basic Physics textbook has already explained to be collections of more than one atom.

Thus, the most basic building block of life and consciousness is the cell, and the cell is not distinguishable at the subatomic level from anything else.

So, how could a cell, or collection thereof, have any special effect on the quantum world when they are no different at the subatomic level than a rock or a pile of dung?

Fliption

Oct3-03, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
This problem was the reason for Tiberius' "Clarification on QM" in the Archives of the Philosophy Forum.

And then Tiberius just traded one untruth for another.[:)]

Mentat

Oct4-03, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
And then Tiberius just traded one untruth for another.[:)]

Not for another "untruth". It may be unverified, but there is nothing scientifically or logically wrong with his approach.

clicky

Oct5-03, 01:46 PM

The understanding of consciousness is linked to the structure of matter, revealed in a complete picture of the universe /1/.

1. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction, Geones Books, 2002.

Fliption

Oct5-03, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Not for another "untruth". It may be unverified, but there is nothing scientifically or logically wrong with his approach.

It is no truer than the approach he was denouncing. Scientifically, it was wrong.

Mentat

Oct6-03, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
It is no truer than the approach he was denouncing. Scientifically, it was wrong.

Actually, my dear fellow, though I hate to dredge up old arguments that we agreed to leave alone, there is no scientifically possible way to postulate consciousness' interacting at the subatomic level. In fact, most of the sciences that ever deal with either phenomenon (subatomic particles or consciousness) give clear reasons (though not directly, since this is not their purpose) why this cannot be the case.

Fliption

Oct6-03, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, my dear fellow, though I hate to dredge up old arguments that we agreed to leave alone, there is no scientifically possible way to postulate consciousness' interacting at the subatomic level. In fact, most of the sciences that ever deal with either phenomenon (subatomic particles or consciousness) give clear reasons (though not directly, since this is not their purpose) why this cannot be the case.

I am not referring to Tiberius' point about consciousness. I am referring to his further elaboration that quantum physics is nothing more than classical billard ball physics. His assertion that the uncertainty principal is nothing more than the measuring object making physical contact with the measured object, hence affecting the measurement, is just not accurate. The uncertainty principal is more fundamental than that.

I would have thought you'd have figured out by now that my problem with Tiberous' post had nothing to do with the objection to consciousness. It was more his writing quantum physics off as nothing more than classical physics and therefore completely "explained". I thought you and I agreed that there was much to learn in quantum physics. It was clear that Tiberious did not think this was true.

Also, on the consciousness topic, if you can point to text that makes the claims you are talking about above I'd like to see it. I haven't seen such things in my readings. Thanks

Mentat

Oct9-03, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
[B]I am not referring to Tiberius' point about consciousness. I am referring to his further elaboration that quantum physics is nothing more than classical billard ball physics. His assertion that the uncertainty principal is nothing more than the measuring object making physical contact with the measured object, hence affecting the measurement, is just not accurate. The uncertainty principal is more fundamental than that.

I would have thought you'd have figured out by now that my problem with Tiberous' post had nothing to do with the objection to consciousness. It was more his writing quantum physics off as nothing more than classical physics and therefore completely "explained". I thought you and I agreed that there was much to learn in quantum physics. It was clear that Tiberious did not think this was true.

Tiberius was (AFAIK) well aware of the superposition of quantum particles, and other such implications of quantum uncertainty. The fact that he used "billiard-ball"-ish illustration is no more a flaw in his argument than Schrodinger's "cat" analogy was a flaw in his (since wave/particle duality is utterly negligble in macroscopic objects like cats).

Also, on the consciousness topic, if you can point to text that makes the claims you are talking about above I'd like to see it. I haven't seen such things in my readings. Thanks

What claims?

Fliption

Oct9-03, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Tiberius was (AFAIK) well aware of the superposition of quantum particles, and other such implications of quantum uncertainty. The fact that he used "billiard-ball"-ish illustration is no more a flaw in his argument than Schrodinger's "cat" analogy was a flaw in his (since wave/particle duality is utterly negligble in macroscopic objects like cats).

I'm not sure I understand your point because to me when he says this:

"On the macro level wave functions are collapsed automatically by all of the particles bouncing into them"

...he is incorrect. Particles bounce into non-collapsed wave functions as well. So whether a particle bounces into it or not is not the determining factor, only a necessary condition. The only thing in the experiments I posted that correlated perfectly with collapse is a "potential for knowledge". Keep in mind that whether this is true or not is not the issue. The issue is that at least one group of scientist don't believe that Tiberius is correct which directly contradicts what he was claiming i.e. that his view was established knowledge.

What claims?

These...

there is no scientifically possible way to postulate consciousness' interacting at the subatomic level. In fact, most of the sciences that ever deal with either phenomenon (subatomic particles or consciousness) give clear reasons why this cannot be the case.

Would love to read these views if you can reference them.

Mentat

Oct10-03, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
I'm not sure I understand your point because to me when he says this:

"On the macro level wave functions are collapsed automatically by all of the particles bouncing into them"

...he is incorrect. Particles bounce into non-collapsed wave functions as well. So whether a particle bounces into it or not is not the determining factor, only a necessary condition. The only thing in the experiments I posted that correlated perfectly with collapse is a "potential for knowledge". Keep in mind that whether this is true or not is not the issue. The issue is that at least one group of scientist don't believe that Tiberius is correct which directly contradicts what he was claiming i.e. that his view was established knowledge.

Oh. I hadn't realized that he'd been so sure of it...thought he was just correcting the idea that living (and/or conscious) beings have a special role in the quantum realm.

Would love to read these views if you can reference them.

Well, for reasons why consciousness is a macroscopic phenomenon that occurs in the brain, I suggest Consciousness Explained or Synaptic Self - though I think any simple textbook on Biology will tell you that thinking processes occur in the brain.

The fact that they occur as processes of the brain, means that they are not special at the subatomic level (since, as any high school textbook will tell you - and as I'm sure you are already aware - brains are made of cells which are made of molecules which are made of atoms...and atoms are the smallest unit that still displays the qualities of it's element...ergo, a brain is not distinguishable from a rock at the subatomic level). For an expert in the field that actually has to state that consciousness is not important for subatomic processes, there's Entanglement by Amir D. Aczel, or The bit and the pendulum: from quantum computing to M theory -- the new physics of information by Tom Siegfreid, or any textbook on QM (at least, all of the ones that I have read).

Fliption

Oct10-03, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, for reasons why consciousness is a macroscopic phenomenon that occurs in the brain, I suggest Consciousness Explained or Synaptic Self - though I think any simple textbook on Biology will tell you that thinking processes occur in the brain.

The fact that they occur as processes of the brain, means that they are not special at the subatomic level (since, as any high school textbook will tell you - and as I'm sure you are already aware - brains are made of cells which are made of molecules which are made of atoms...and atoms are the smallest unit that still displays the qualities of it's element...ergo, a brain is not distinguishable from a rock at the subatomic level). For an expert in the field that actually has to state that consciousness is not important for subatomic processes, there's Entanglement by Amir D. Aczel, or The bit and the pendulum: from quantum computing to M theory -- the new physics of information by Tom Siegfreid, or any textbook on QM (at least, all of the ones that I have read). [/B]

Of course I understand these things. But you didn't say "thinking" in your previous post. You said 'consciousness'. I guess I think of them as being different.

Mentat

Oct11-03, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Of course I understand these things. But you didn't say "thinking" in your previous post. You said 'consciousness'. I guess I think of them as being different.

Oh...I hadn't considered that. Consciousness is awareness, and awareness is pretty much always in the form of thought (I can't think of when it wouldn't be (pun intended [:)])), so I just took for granted that there wasn't much of a distinction to be made between "thought" at the subatomic level and "consciousness" at the subatomic level.

Fliption

Oct11-03, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
so I just took for granted that there wasn't much of a distinction to be made between "thought" at the subatomic level and "consciousness" at the subatomic level.

OK then this explains why I haven't read anything that made the claims you have. To me, the words refer to different things. There are no philosophy/science topics titled "The problem of Thinking".

Mentat

Oct13-03, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Fliption
OK then this explains why I haven't read anything that made the claims you have. To me, the words refer to different things. There are no philosophy/science topics titled "The problem of Thinking".

And yet thought is only possible in highly conscious beings - thus making the two problems completely inter-related (and rather impossible, on their own, I might add).

Fliption

Oct13-03, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
And yet thought is only possible in highly conscious beings - thus making the two problems completely inter-related (and rather impossible, on their own, I might add).

But that doesn't make them the same thing, does it? They refer to two different specific things. Inter-related doesn't mean they can be equated.

Also, what other way would you know if something is highly conscious except for its ability to demontrate thought? You assume the two are inter-related because you don't know what other property to look for. This gets back to Hypnagogue's point I believe. You have to make all sorts of assumptions about consiousness in general based on what you know about humans.

Mentat

Oct24-03, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
But that doesn't make them the same thing, does it? They refer to two different specific things. Inter-related doesn't mean they can be equated.

Also, what other way would you know if something is highly conscious except for its ability to demontrate thought? You assume the two are inter-related because you don't know what other property to look for. This gets back to Hypnagogue's point I believe. You have to make all sorts of assumptions about consiousness in general based on what you know about humans.

No, I make this assumption of consciousness, because of the very definitions that have been attributed to consciousness. In order for one to be "thoughtfully aware" of their surroundings or "capable of contemplation", they must be able to think, and these are common definitions - or parts of definitions - of consciousness.

Anyway, as to their being equated, I don't just assume that they can be equated, this is a result of how they are commonly defined. Besides, the discussion is not about thought and consciousness, and how they are related, it's how consciousness can influence subatomic phenomena. And, since consciousness cannot exist without thought (by it's very definition), and thought is macroscopic phenomenon, I hold that consciousness cannot influence subatomic objects.

Rader

Oct25-03, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
No, I make this assumption of consciousness, because of the very definitions that have been attributed to consciousness. In order for one to be "thoughtfully aware" of their surroundings or "capable of contemplation", they must be able to think, and these are common definitions - or parts of definitions - of consciousness.

Anyway, as to their being equated, I don't just assume that they can be equated, this is a result of how they are commonly defined. Besides, the discussion is not about thought and consciousness, and how they are related, it's how consciousness can influence subatomic phenomena. And, since consciousness cannot exist without thought (by it's very definition), and thought is macroscopic phenomenon, I hold that consciousness cannot influence subatomic objects.

If thought and consciousness is only a macroscopic phenomenon and not a mircroscopic phenomenon by what process then how did a atom find its way to evolve to what we are, to ask these questions. Where do you make the dividing line between, when something thinks?
[8)]

Mentat

Oct27-03, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Rader
If thought and consciousness is only a macroscopic phenomenon and not a mircroscopic phenomenon by what process then how did a atom find its way to evolve to what we are, to ask these questions. Where do you make the dividing line between, when something thinks?
[8)]

But an atom does not decide to evolve, and it doesn't need to. In fact, no species ever has to decide to evolve, as natural selection and variation will cause this anyway. The atom becomes part of a molecule, because that's the way things work at the atomic level, there is an attraction which creates covalent bonds, whether the atom "likes it or not"...and since the atom doesn't like anything (it can't think) it complies and become a part of a "more evolved" structure, without every having to think about anything.

No, thought is a macroscopic process, otherwise there would be no use for a frontal cortex.

Rader

Oct27-03, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
But an atom does not decide to evolve, and it doesn't need to. In fact, no species ever has to decide to evolve, as natural selection and variation will cause this anyway. The atom becomes part of a molecule, because that's the way things work at the atomic level, there is an attraction which creates covalent bonds, whether the atom "likes it or not"...and since the atom doesn't like anything (it can't think) it complies and become a part of a "more evolved" structure, without every having to think about anything.

No, thought is a macroscopic process, otherwise there would be no use for a frontal cortex.

On the most fundamental level atoms do evolve, if they did not they would always stay atoms. They evolve into molecules, this is a fact. Yes you are right there is an attraction which creates covalent bonds, thats the means they evolve but there is only one choice each time that is made of a multitude of choices. Free will decision and consciouness has to exist on the most funadamental level, we are the proof at the long end of the evolutionary chain. When you reach natural selection and variation you are getting high up into the evolutionary chain, once again just more words which mean free will decision and consciousness. As for your frontal cortex thats the last step at the moment for free will decision and consciousness.

You did not answer my question by what process then, did a atom find its way to evolve to what we are, to ask these questions. You say it does not need to yet it is a fact it did. I understand we can not fully understand each other. Is your answer then that it is just purely mechanical, purely laws and physics.

If you want the proofs read Raul O. Leguizamon, Book title in spanish> En torno al origen de la vida which means The cause of the origen of life. ISBN 987-1036-09-4

I have heard the answers> by chance, over a long time, thats the way it is, God did it all at once, heat and lighting, thats the way things work, probability, extraterestral life forms, we are an illusion ect.ect.

I can understand the spontaneous creation of something from nothing but only if there is a reason behind it.

Royce

Oct28-03, 10:04 AM

It has been said before that the materialistic view point is at a disadvantage in trying to explain or understand metaphysical and subjective phenomena. In my opinion this is because materialistic views are upside down, viewing from the bottom, the effect and trying to decide the cause.
The physical laws and processes are viewed as prime and as the cause of everything where they are actually an effect of a cause that the materislistic view as an effect.
In my nonmaterialistic view consciousness and mind are primary. The mind of God, or the creator, or the universe, or conscious singularity, whatever you want to call it, is prime, the cause of everything else.
This is not just a religious dogmatic view point. The laws of physics are logical and ordered. They are not random or chaotic. It is easy for a materislist to say that the laws of science are the prime cause but who or what made the laws just exactly so, so that conscious life would emerge and be self aware.
The ultimate reality in my opinion is the mind of the creator, the conscious universe. The next order of reality is the mind through which the consciousness and awareness act and influence the material world. The lowest order of reality is the material world which is the result or effect of the consciousness that is or is the creator of the universe.
I have no proof nor any support other than observations from another view point. In my mind these observations are just as real and reasonable as the observations from the materialistic view point.
It is hard for a materialist to accept this view point, I know, because materialist do not even accept the existence of the subjective or metaphysical realm of reality.
How can one hope to understand or explain reality if one will only accept the existence of one third of reality and view the illusion, the effect, the material universe as the one and only and thus prime cause of everything. In my view this is upside down and backward as I have said. Materialist may say that that may be but it is all that we have to go on, all that we can know and measure as real. To which I reply as I have done so often before; yes, but that is onlky because you refuse to look at or for anything else. To you a rock is the ultimate reality and prime cause whereas to me that rock is only illusion and exists only in the mind. It is sensed and perceived as real and thus by effect is real.

Rader

Oct28-03, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Royce
It has been said before that the materialistic view point is at a disadvantage in trying to explain or understand metaphysical and subjective phenomena. In my opinion this is because materialistic views are upside down, viewing from the bottom, the effect and trying to decide the cause.
The physical laws and processes are viewed as prime and as the cause of everything where they are actually an effect of a cause that the materislistic view as an effect.
In my nonmaterialistic view consciousness and mind are primary. The mind of God, or the creator, or the universe, or conscious singularity, whatever you want to call it, is prime, the cause of everything else.
This is not just a religious dogmatic view point. The laws of physics are logical and ordered. They are not random or chaotic. It is easy for a materislist to say that the laws of science are the prime cause but who or what made the laws just exactly so, so that conscious life would emerge and be self aware.
The ultimate reality in my opinion is the mind of the creator, the conscious universe. The next order of reality is the mind through which the consciousness and awareness act and influence the material world. The lowest order of reality is the material world which is the result or effect of the consciousness that is or is the creator of the universe.
I have no proof nor any support other than observations from another view point. In my mind these observations are just as real and reasonable as the observations from the materialistic view point.
It is hard for a materialist to accept this view point, I know, because materialist do not even accept the existence of the subjective or metaphysical realm of reality.
How can one hope to understand or explain reality if one will only accept the existence of one third of reality and view the illusion, the effect, the material universe as the one and only and thus prime cause of everything. In my view this is upside down and backward as I have said. Materialist may say that that may be but it is all that we have to go on, all that we can know and measure as real. To which I reply as I have done so often before; yes, but that is onlky because you refuse to look at or for anything else. To you a rock is the ultimate reality and prime cause whereas to me that rock is only illusion and exists only in the mind. It is sensed and perceived as real and thus by effect is real.

Well put Royce.
If any materialist knows his profession to all its depth he has to realize the impossiblity of inert matter to organize itself all by itself. The long evolutionary chain of perfection from the right charge for the electron to the thought processes of us in the frontal cortex dictate that there has to be something more. Free will decision and consciouness has to exist on the most funadamental level. These qualities would have to be imbeded in the DNA that first caused it all. Materialism can explain HOW it works but not WHY it works.
[8)]
Its not what we know now that counts its what we will know later. Rader

Royce

Oct28-03, 03:05 PM

Thank you Richard. A belated welcome to the Physics Forum. We subjective idealist need all the numbers and help we can get to counter the rampant objective materialists here.

[;)]

Tom Mattson

Oct28-03, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Rader
If thought and consciousness is only a macroscopic phenomenon and not a mircroscopic phenomenon by what process then how did a atom find its way to evolve to what we are, to ask these questions.

Aggregations of atoms form larger structures primarily by electromagnetic processes.

Where do you make the dividing line between, when something thinks?

To this date, no one has successfully drawn such a line. But to ascribe the impetus of the atoms to form such aggregations to something like human consciousness is to stretch the concept of 'consciousness' beyond any usefulness.

On the most fundamental level atoms do evolve, if they did not they would always stay atoms. They evolve into molecules, this is a fact. Yes you are right there is an attraction which creates covalent bonds, thats the means they evolve but there is only one choice each time that is made of a multitude of choices. Free will decision and consciouness has to exist on the most funadamental level, we are the proof at the long end of the evolutionary chain.

The part in red simply does not follow from the evidence you presented. There is no reason to think that free will is involved in electromagnetic processes, no matter how many such processes are strung together in a sequence to result in a rock, a star, a tree, or a human being. In fact, the evidence actually implies the contrary position: that free will is not a facet of the microscopic world. That is, the predictability of the results of experiments implies that the forces under which aggregations of matter form are dumb forces. You will not find such consistency in any social science experiment, in which at least the illusion of free will among human subjects is manifest.

You (edit: Mentat) did not answer my question by what process then, did a atom find its way to evolve to what we are, to ask these questions.

I thought he did answer it by mentioning covalent bonding, but in case it is not clear I'll say it again: The processes are primarily electromagnetic.

Tom Mattson

Oct28-03, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Rader
If any materialist knows his profession to all its depth he has to realize the impossiblity of inert matter to organize itself all by itself.

Why?

The long evolutionary chain of perfection from the right charge for the electron to the thought processes of us in the frontal cortex dictate that there has to be something more.

Yes, but that "something more" is different for the materialist than it is for the idealist. For the latter, the "something more" has to be this unintelligible, unverifiable, unfalsifiable concept called "god", an ad hoc assumption with absolutely no evidentiary basis. For the materialist, the "something more" is a better scientific theory, perhaps to be discovered by future generations.

Free will decision and consciouness has to exist on the most funadamental level. These qualities would have to be imbeded in the DNA that first caused it all.

So you keep asserting, but I see no valid argument in favor of it. As far as I can see, your entire case is based on the fallacy of composition. You seem to be arguing along the same lines as:

"Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms. Therefore, cats are colorless."

which is not valid reasoning.

Materialism can explain HOW it works but not WHY it works.

We all know that. A materialist would greet this statement with a great big "so what?" That is because the materialist knows that the universe is not known a priori, but by observation. When one takes that perspective of epistemology of science, it becomes clear we think that such "why?" questions are unanswerable. Idealists, on the other hand, mistakenly assume that the universe is known a priori, and that one should be able to answer these questions just by reasoning them out. Of course, that is false, so idealists fabricate this concept of a "super mind" and call it god, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support such a notion.

The above quote from you seems to stem from the flawed concepts of idealism. Since materialists do not have that hangup, it is not a problem for us.

Royce

Oct28-03, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Tom

We all know that. A materialist would greet this statement with a great big "so what?" That is because the materialist knows that the universe is not known a priori, but by observation. When one takes that perspective of epistemology of science, it becomes clear we think that such "why?" questions are unanswerable. Idealists, on the other hand, mistakenly assume that the universe is known a priori, and that one should be able to answer these questions just by reasoning them out. Of course, that is false, so idealists fabricate this concept of a "super mind" and call it god, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support such a notion.

If I, as an Idealist, think that the "why/" question is the most important question that can be asked; and, I answer the question, at least in part, that the answer is that all of the material universe was created as it was and all that has happened as it has for the purpose of bringing about intelligent, conscious, self aware, life and to support and maintain that life, I can then taking this as a hypothisis and work backwards.
This of course presupposes that there is purpose and intent to the universe. I eventually reach the most fundamental laws and theories of physics and say that an electron, whatever that may actually be must have the properties that it has to make life possible. This is a simplistic example, of course; but, I'm sure that you can get the drift of what I'm saying.
This way of viewing things of course implys a conscious rational mind in charge that started it all in motion after making the laws and properties so that it would all work. It leads of course to God or a god or creator or conscious universe.
I am aware that this can be called circular reasoning as the conclusion is implied in the premise. It is the same process however as materialist use in that they start out saying there is no God nor any purpose to the universe. Then looking only at the material universe say that they see no evidence of a god or purpose. Materialist usually, just as you did, leave out the words "physical" "material" and "objective" when they say that they find no evidence. There is evidence. There are tons of evidence or an ancidotal and experiential nature that is subjective not physical, material or objective.

We seem to have come full circle as this was my main bone of contention and main point in my first number of posts when I first joined the PF's. I still think that the rift is only one of viewpoint and/or opinion and not an irreconcilable difference in reality.

Tom Mattson

Oct29-03, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Royce
If I, as an Idealist, think that the "why/" question is the most important question that can be asked; and, I answer the question, at least in part, that the answer is that all of the material universe was created as it was and all that has happened as it has for the purpose of bringing about intelligent, conscious, self aware, life and to support and maintain that life, I can then taking this as a hypothisis and work backwards.

But it is a completely fabricated, ad hoc hypothesis. The thing that is immediately evident is the material universe, not the Super Mind that you postulate to be behind it. You take a concept called 'other minds', something that we only know of by observing the behavior of 'other bodies'. You then--for no apparent reason--detatch the concept of 'other mind' from 'other body' and endow it with superhuman powers to come up with the concept of god. This is totally implausible until one can demonstrate the existence of even a single brainless mind, let alone one that it all powerful.

This of course presupposes that there is purpose and intent to the universe. I eventually reach the most fundamental laws and theories of physics and say that an electron, whatever that may actually be must have the properties that it has to make life possible. This is a simplistic example, of course; but, I'm sure that you can get the drift of what I'm saying.

This is the same fallacy of composition that I already pointed out.

I am aware that this can be called circular reasoning as the conclusion is implied in the premise. It is the same process however as materialist use in that they start out saying there is no God nor any purpose to the universe.

A materialist need not say that there is no god (and indeed I do not say that). A materialist only takes that which is immediately evident and does not assume the existence of things that are not immediately evident.

Then looking only at the material universe say that they see no evidence of a god or purpose. Materialist usually, just as you did, leave out the words "physical" "material" and "objective" when they say that they find no evidence.

I left those qualifiers out becuase when I say "evidence", I take it as understood that there is no such thing as "evidence" that does not fall into a category of physical, material, or obectively verifiable.

There is evidence. There are tons of evidence or an ancidotal and experiential nature that is subjective not physical, material or objective.

That is only evidence to you. To say that such subjective verification counts as evidence is to distort the idea of evidence beyond all usefulness, because it is only evident to one person. Furthermore, my experiential "evidence" and yours do not agree. So whose, then is to be accepted? The only possible answer is, "My evidence is accepted by me, and yours is accepted by you."

That is a very important point, and a fatal flaw of your idealism.

The metaphysics of your idealism insists that absolute truths can be ascertained by reason alone in the form of a priori knowledge of reality. But the epistemology of your idealism must necessarily include "evidence" that is only subjectively verifiable to support its assumptions about the mind. Without some objective standard for distinguishing between my "evidence" and your "evidence", the attainment of absolute truths--which must be true for everyone---is impossible.

Thus, your idealism is completely incoherent.

Rader

Oct29-03, 12:05 PM

Tom i figured you would show up sooner or later to back Mentate. Thanks for answering.

Why?

Because nothing has evolved into something that realizez there is someting greater than I. Thats the answer.

Yes, but that "something more" is different for the materialist than it is for the idealist. For the latter, the "something more" has to be this unintelligible, unverifiable, unfalsifiable concept called "god", an ad hoc assumption with absolutely no evidentiary basis. For the materialist, the "something more" is a better scientific theory, perhaps to be discovered by future generations.

The answer will be the same for you or I. Enate matter if you like has organized itself into conscioussly questioning its beginnings.
Future generations will know more and more of the HOW but the WHY will not change.

So you keep asserting, but I see no valid argument in favor of it. As far as I can see, your entire case is based on the fallacy of composition. You seem to be arguing along the same lines as:
By what means is it possible then?

"Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms. Therefore, cats are colorless."

How did you come up with that statement. I would say that atoms are colorless until they find a match, and when thy do, the cats made of those atoms would be all colors.
Seriously the standard model shows us why the sky is blue and that atoms do have colors but only because our level of concious perception allows it.

We all know that. A materialist would greet this statement with a great big "so what?" That is because the materialist knows that the universe is not known a priori, but by observation. When one takes that perspective of epistemology of science, it becomes clear we think that such "why?" questions are unanswerable. Idealists, on the other hand, mistakenly assume that the universe is known a priori, and that one should be able to answer these questions just by reasoning them out. Of course, that is false, so idealists fabricate this concept of a "super mind" and call it god, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support such a notion.

I do not think we are getting anywhere, you arguments for you are as valid as mine are for me. But take this for a thought. That concious intellengece evolved from inerte nothing for no reason is in a materialistic standpoint ilogical.

The above quote from you seems to stem from the flawed concepts of idealism. Since materialists do not have that hangup, it is not a problem for us.

The above quote from me seems to stem from the belief of a creator which for me is the only sane reason we are talking to each other. I have no hangup.I have enjoyed exchanging ideas with you.

Nothing the human mind can think will not be some day part of the total reality. Rader
[8)]

Rader

Oct29-03, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Tom
Aggregations of atoms form larger structures primarily by electromagnetic processes.

To this date, no one has successfully drawn such a line. But to ascribe the impetus of the atoms to form such aggregations to something like human consciousness is to stretch the concept of 'consciousness' beyond any usefulness.

The part in red simply does not follow from the evidence you presented. There is no reason to think that free will is involved in electromagnetic processes, no matter how many such processes are strung together in a sequence to result in a rock, a star, a tree, or a human being. In fact, the evidence actually implies the contrary position: that free will is not a facet of the microscopic world. That is, the predictability of the results of experiments implies that the forces under which aggregations of matter form are dumb forces. You will not find such consistency in any social science experiment, in which at least the illusion of free will among human subjects is manifest.

I thought he did answer it by mentioning covalent bonding, but in case it is not clear I'll say it again: The processes are primarily electromagnetic.

You would have to agree that free will decision and human consciousness is a human and only human attrubute? I do not wish to find consistency in any social science experiment. I have a free will and can consciously decide what to believe. Human understanding and conscioussness is ever evolving. What is true today was not yesterday and will not be tomorrow. Not the whole truth but our truth. Ask Copernicus.
[8)]

Royce

Oct29-03, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Tom
But it is a completely fabricated, ad hoc hypothesis. The thing that is immediately evident is the material universe,

The thing that is immediately evident is that the only evidence that we have of the material world is subjective perceptions of our sensory inputs which are know to be limited and fallible even with the best instruments to augment our senses. Your evidence is no more substantial than the subjective evidence of my personal experiences and the testemony of other who say that they have seen the same things. Just as your evidence must be collaborated so must mine.
You take the word of other scientists. I take the word of other metaphysiscists or idealist as well.

not the Super Mind that you postulate to be behind it. You take a concept called 'other minds', something that we only know of by observing the behavior of 'other bodies'. You then--for no apparent reason--detatch the concept of 'other mind' from 'other body' and endow it with superhuman powers to come up with the concept of god. This is totally implausible until one can demonstrate the existence of even a single brainless mind, let alone one that it all powerful.

I did not say that the "other (super) mind" did not have a body. That is you assumption. I do not know if it, God, does or does not have a body whether material or immaterial. Some thing that the universe itself may be the superminds body.
It is no more implausable than the Big Bang or string hypothisis as there is no known way to test either or varify predictions no matter how well the math fits and supports them. It is no more unintuitive or weird than QM.

A materialist need not say that there is no god (and indeed I do not say that). A materialist only takes that which is immediately evident and does not assume the existence of things that are not immediately evident.

Your assumption is that your sensory inputs and you subjective perceptions are true and real, more true and real than my subjective perceptions of the metaphysical. This is simple bias. Your view is that the material is real and prime, the ultimate reality; and' metaphysics is illusion. My view point is that the metaphysical is real ad prime, the ultimate reality; and, the material is the illusion. Who, if either of us, is right? I don't know any more than you do.

I left those qualifiers out becuase when I say "evidence", I take it as understood that there is no such thing as "evidence" that does not fall into a category of physical, material, or obectively verifiable.

Tom there are thousands of books, articles, stories and first hand tesemony of personal experience with methaphysics and God as well as my own personal experience. Since they collaborate my experienc I am not willing to dismiss them as not real evidence. Again the above statement is pure materialistic bias. "It aint so unless I say its so." It is the very thing that keeps any materialist from seeing anything that they don't want to see or have to admit might be real.
"If I don't accept or look at any such evidence then I can honestly say that there is no evidence." This is the open mind of a true scientist?

That is only evidence to you. To say that such subjective verification counts as evidence is to distort the idea of evidence beyond all usefulness, because it is only evident to one person. Furthermore, my experiential "evidence" and yours do not agree. So whose, then is to be accepted? The only possible answer is, "My evidence is accepted by me, and yours is accepted by you." [QUOTE]

The same rule of evidence apply to my subjective evidence as applies to your subjective evidence. The only differece is that I admit that my evidence is anecdotal and subjective where yours is carveed in granite and came down from the mount of objective materialism in the name of Science. Need I remind you that science has had its share of mistakes error and fraud just as any other human endevore.

[QUOTE]
The metaphysics of your idealism insists that absolute truths can be ascertained by reason alone in the form of a priori knowledge of reality. But the epistemology of your idealism must necessarily include "evidence" that is only subjectively verifiable to support its assumptions about the mind. Without some objective standard for distinguishing between my "evidence" and your "evidence", the attainment of absolute truths--which must be true for everyone---is impossible.

The point is, is that there is no conflict, no contradiction between the metaphysical and the physical. One does not exclude the other unless a materialist excludes the metaphysical. You do not have to except any absolute truths, there are no absolute truths in science.
Metaphysics presents absolute truths and we try to apply it to our lives. It isn't mandatory. It is just there. If it is of use to you, use it, if not, don't. That is your choice.

Mentat

Oct29-03, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Rader
[B]On the most fundamental level atoms do evolve, if they did not they would always stay atoms. They evolve into molecules, this is a fact. Yes you are right there is an attraction which creates covalent bonds, thats the means they evolve but there is only one choice each time that is made of a multitude of choices. Free will decision and consciouness has to exist on the most funadamental level, we are the proof at the long end of the evolutionary chain. When you reach natural selection and variation you are getting high up into the evolutionary chain, once again just more words which mean free will decision and consciousness. As for your frontal cortex thats the last step at the moment for free will decision and consciousness.

You did not answer my question by what process then, did a atom find its way to evolve to what we are, to ask these questions. You say it does not need to yet it is a fact it did. I understand we can not fully understand each other. Is your answer then that it is just purely mechanical, purely laws and physics.

Yes, it is all governed by the laws of physics. There is no choice necessary since it is a known fact that all particles follow the path of least resistance.

If you want the proofs read Raul O. Leguizamon, Book title in spanish> En torno al origen de la vida which means The cause of the origen of life. ISBN 987-1036-09-4

Usted habla Espanol? Yo soy Puerto Riceno nativo, pero vivo en lost Estados Unidos, y hablo Ingles mejor que hablo Espanol.

Mentat

Oct29-03, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Rader
Tom i figured you would show up sooner or later to back Mentate.

And he had to come and do such an awesome job of it, too [:))]. Makes me look like an amateur [t)].

Mentat

Oct29-03, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Rader
Because nothing has evolved into something that realizez there is someting greater than I. Thats the answer.

How does this answer Tom's question? He was asking why you think a materialist has to accept that matter can organize itself on its own, without the electromagnetic force.

The answer will be the same for you or I. Enate matter if you like has organized itself into conscioussly questioning its beginnings.
Future generations will know more and more of the HOW but the WHY will not change.

The "why" may not even exist. You have given us no reason to believe that there is such a thing as "the 'why'".

By what means is it possible then?

Didn't he already tell you that it happens do to the electromagnetic force? I'm sorry, but I just can't see how you could have missed this.

How did you come up with that statement. I would say that atoms are colorless until they find a match, and when thy do, the cats made of those atoms would be all colors.

But you would be creating an ad hoc hypothesis, which violates Occam's Razor and the way that Logic is supposed to be done.

Seriously the standard model shows us why the sky is blue and that atoms do have colors but only because our level of concious perception allows it.

The standard model shows us nothing of the kind. The standard model only tells us what different kinds of particles exist.

I do not think we are getting anywhere, you arguments for you are as valid as mine are for me. But take this for a thought. That concious intellengece evolved from inerte nothing for no reason is in a materialistic standpoint ilogical.

Not at all. In fact, consciousness could not have evolved for a reason, because reason is only assigned by conscious beings, and thus the conscious being always exists before any reasons.

Mentat

Oct29-03, 04:44 PM

Rader

Oct29-03, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Mentat
And he had to come and do such an awesome job of it, too [:))]. Makes me look like an amateur [t)].

Do not take it so personal, nuke me if you like.

If you want the proofs read Raul O. Leguizamon, Book title in spanish> En torno al origen de la vida which means The cause of the origen of life. ISBN 987-1036-09-4

I read and write Spanish or English but English is my first language, as i was born in Chicago. If you can read the book it is worth the effort. Not sure you can get it in English, I read it in Spanish.
Hasta luego, buenas noches señores
Adios

[8)]

Royce

Oct30-03, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Mentat
Wrong, the thing that is immediately evident is that which we percieve, not how we percieve it. That is added later, which is what (I think) Tom was trying to explain to you.

Please read that part of my post again. You say I am wrong then say the same thing that I did. First we perceive. All perceptions are subjective. perceptions in this case are interpretation of our sensory inputs.

[QOUT]
Obviously you are not educated in these fields (I mean no offense, simply an observation), since if you were you would know that these theories are substantiated by enormous bodies of evidence (except for the string theory, but we're still working on that one [;)]), and that denying that weakens your side immeasurably.[/QUOTE]

We have been over this before, Mentat. There is no evidence that the Big Bang actually took place. The only real evidence that supports it is the value of the background microwave radiation detected by COBE
is the same or nearly so as it would be if the BB did take place about when we think that it would. If you have other hard evidence of the BB then please direct me to it because I have yet to be able to find it. I base my comment about string theory on what little I have read and mainly on the NOVA program that I watched Tuesday evening called the Elegant Universe hosted by Brian Green. Those are the only two theories that I mentioned anything about. So maybe you had better tell Brian Greene and John Gribbin that they are not educated enough in those subjects to make comments.

But, really, that is not a belief at all, it is the lack of a belief. Much like atheism (which is the choice not to take for granted that god exists; but also not taking for granted that he doesn't), it satisfies Occam's Razor much better than those that have gone "a step further" by making an assumption. You see, Tom has not taken for granted anything but what can be observed. While you, OTOH, have assumed that there is a metaphysical part to this, which we can't observe (and thus can't show to exist at all).

Nobody is talking about beliefs here. We are discussing views or stances. But, Tom has made an assumption, the assumption that his perceptions of the objective material world are real and true and that any evidence other than objective material evidence is not evidenvce at all. I disagree and dispute this statement.

Seriously, ask a child who was raised completely seperate from civilization, and see whether he tells you of the things that exist seperate from him, or instead, tells you of some metaphysical mind which he possesses that processes all of the incoming data.

I can't ask a child who was raised completely seperate from civilization. None are alive that I know of and the only such child that I know of could not speak at all. If you are talking about primative tribes people, they usually have a rich mythology and religious beliefs and believe far more in the metaphysical than we do.
The first time I came across such a concept as the objective material world being an illusion was hering about the
Austrailian Aborigenes calling this the "Dream Time."

My views are less valid onlyif one perscribs to the assumptions of the objective materialist view. From my view point those assumption are not valid or logical. Science has nothing to do with this discussion as science does not have anything to say abot philosopy or meataphysics at all.

Tom Mattson

Oct30-03, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Royce
The thing that is immediately evident is that the only evidence that we have of the material world is subjective perceptions of our sensory inputs which are know to be limited and fallible even with the best instruments to augment our senses. Your evidence is no more substantial than the subjective evidence of my personal experiences and the testemony of other who say that they have seen the same things.

The evidence that is collected about the natural world by scientific investigation is certainly more substantial than your personal experiences. Your personal experiences cannot be verified or falsified to anyone but you. Furthermore, your noting that any evidence gathering endeavor is "limited and fallible" only serves to strengthen my point. It is precisely because the gathering of evidence is so limited that the most objective standard must be sought after. And it is because scientists seek that objective standard that there is so little variation in the evidence we collect. The same cannot be said of those who use personal experience as evidence. Put two philosophers in a room who use such a sloppy standard, and they will fight like cats and dogs.

Just as your evidence must be collaborated so must mine.
You take the word of other scientists. I take the word of other metaphysiscists or idealist as well.

This is so inaccurate, I can't believe you even said it, especially after being at Physics Forums for so long. Scientists have no need to "take the word of other scientists". Our evidence is objectively verifiable. That means that any scientist can go into a laboratory or observatory, do the same experiment, and get the same result, to within some experimental error.

I did not say that the "other (super) mind" did not have a body. That is you assumption. I do not know if it, God, does or does not have a body whether material or immaterial.

You don't get it.

What you do say is that there is a some "super mind", and you do this without having ever observed the behavior of the "other body". For that there is no justification, and that was my point.

Some thing that the universe itself may be the superminds body.
It is no more implausable than the Big Bang or string hypothisis as there is no known way to test either or varify predictions no matter how well the math fits and supports them. It is no more unintuitive or weird than QM.

As it stands, the above is false. The Big Bang theory, string theory, and QM are all both verifiable and falsifiable. Your idealism is neither. Perhaps you would like to cast it in a form that is both verifiable and falsifiable, by something other than personal experience? By some test an independent observer can do, and on whose results can concur with you?

Until you do that, your idealism does not have even a sliver of the plausibility of any of those scientific theories.

Your assumption is that your sensory inputs and you subjective perceptions are true and real, more true and real than my subjective perceptions of the metaphysical. This is simple bias.

No, it is not "simple bias". Data taken by the senses, and by extension, scientific instruments, is reproducible and objectively verifiable. Furthermore, it is consistent with my more fundamental assumption that reality is known a posteriori, in contrast to the idealist assumption that reality is known a priori. I do not reject the latter out of bias, I reject it because it has consistently failed to produce any insight into the workings of the natural world. Until someone shows me that the universe can be understood apart from observation, then I will change my mind.

Your view is that the material is real and prime, the ultimate reality; and' metaphysics is illusion. My view point is that the metaphysical is real ad prime, the ultimate reality; and, the material is the illusion. Who, if either of us, is right? I don't know any more than you do.

It is not that I reject metaphysics. It is that I reject *your* metaphysics. That is, I reject idealist ontology in general as a way to reason about reality, and I reject your idealism in particular for its logical incoherence. I pointed this out in my last post.

Tom there are thousands of books, articles, stories and first hand tesemony of personal experience with methaphysics and God as well as my own personal experience. Since they collaborate my experienc I am not willing to dismiss them as not real evidence. Again the above statement is pure materialistic bias.

The above statement makes it clear that the bias is on your part.

You take the "thousands of books" that agree with your idealism as evidence. So what do you do with the "thousands of books" that don't agree with it?

The fact is, those books you mention do not mean anything without an objectively verifiable way for anyone to test them.

"It aint so unless I say its so." It is the very thing that keeps any materialist from seeing anything that they don't want to see or have to admit might be real. "If I don't accept or look at any such evidence then I can honestly say that there is no evidence." This is the open mind of a true scientist?

LOL, you sure do know how to spin things to make yourself look good!

You are talking about subjective, anecdotal, experiential "evidence". How on earth could I possible "look" at your "evidence" when I do not have access to your mental states?

The point is, is that there is no conflict, no contradiction between the metaphysical and the physical.

What are you talking about?

I did not say that there is a contradiction between "the metaphysical and the physical", I said that there is a contradiction between "Royce's metaphysics and Royce's epistemology", and I presented a good argument to back it up.

Here it is again:

The metaphysics of your idealism insists that absolute truths can be ascertained by reason alone in the form of a priori knowledge of reality. But the epistemology of your idealism must necessarily include "evidence" that is only subjectively verifiable to support its assumptions about the mind. Without some objective standard for distinguishing between my "evidence" and your "evidence", the attainment of absolute truths--which must be true for everyone---is impossible.

Do you see the contradiction now?

Tom Mattson

Oct30-03, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Royce
But, Tom has made an assumption, the assumption that his perceptions of the objective material world are real and true and that any evidence other than objective material evidence is not evidenvce at all. I disagree and dispute this statement.

You have not disputed the statement, you have simply denied it. So, here is your chance to dispute it:

Royce, tell me, how can you know something apart from perceiving it? And furthermore, how can I know that you know something, apart from verifying your perceptions with my own?

Until you or anyone else can answer that satisfactorily, I'm sticking with what I said.

My views are less valid onlyif one perscribs to the assumptions of the objective materialist view.

Actually, I argued that your views are not logical even if one adopts only your premises, precisely because your views are not consistent with each other. Maybe you will have something to say about that after re-reading my argument that pits your metaphysics against your epistemology.

From my view point those assumption are not valid or logical.

Since you have yet to show that materialism is logically invalid, this assertion is floating in a total vacuum right now.

Tom Mattson

Oct30-03, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Rader
Because nothing has evolved into something that realizez there is someting greater than I. Thats the answer.

That is no answer.

Your original statement spoke of the impossibility of such a thing occurring. Your statement here speaks of the uniqueness of it occurring. One does not follow from the other.

Try again?

The answer will be the same for you or I. Enate matter if you like has organized itself into conscioussly questioning its beginnings.
Future generations will know more and more of the HOW but the WHY will not change.

Since I think the "WHY" question is unanswerable, that doesn't bother me.

By what means is it possible then?

By means of electromagnetic processes. Ask me again, and I'll tell you the same.

Tom: "Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms. Therefore, cats are colorless."

Rader: How did you come up with that statement.

My point was not about atoms, colors, or cats, but about the fallacy of composition. To avoid getting hung up on irrelevant details, I'll change the argument.

The fallacy of composition works two ways:

1. Constituents {xi} have property p. Composite X is composed of constituents {xi}. Therefore, Composite X has property p.

Now one could argue, using the above schema, that since quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons have the property of being not devoid of consciousness, and since the brain is composed of those constituents, then the brain is also not devoid of consciousness. The conclusion is true, but the schema does not make the premise true.

A counterexample is that since sodium and chlorine are have the property of being dangerous for humans to consume, and since sodium chloride is made of sodium and chlorine, that sodium chloride is also dangerous for humans to consume. Here we use the schema with true premises and a false conclusion, so it cannot be valid.

2. Composite X has property p. Composite X is composed of constituents {xi}. Therefore, each consistuent {xi} has property p.

One could argue, using the above schema, that since brains are composed of quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons, and that since brains have the property of being conscious, that the quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons that compose the brain also have the property of being conscious. Is this valid reasoning? Let's see, using different premises.

This post that Rader is reading is composed of pixels, and the post has the property of containing a message from Tom. Therefore, each pixel has the property of containing the message from Tom. Here again, we use the schema with true premises and a false conclusion, so it too cannot be valid.

As far as I can see, your arguments fall along those lines.

I do not think we are getting anywhere, you arguments for you are as valid as mine are for me.

You have a basic misunderstanding about logic. Whether or not an argument is logically valid is not up for debate. I may disagree with the truth of your premises, but if you use valid logic I can and will recognize and acknowledge it.

But you simply have not used valid logic.

But take this for a thought. That concious intellengece evolved from inerte nothing for no reason is in a materialistic standpoint ilogical.

Rader, this is not how philosophy is done. This is just an empty assertion with no argument to back it up. It is not food for thought, it is junk food for non-thought.

edit: fixed italics bracket

Tom Mattson

Oct30-03, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Rader
You would have to agree that free will decision and human consciousness is a human and only human attrubute?

Let's break up your compound statement.

"Free will decision is a human and only human attribute."

I am not certain that it is a human attribute at all. Materialist models of consciousness have been produced that state that human brains have enough bandwidth (if you will) to give the illusion of free will decision. However, I would not agree that this thing you speak of, whether it is real or illusion, is exclusive to humans. I cannot, since I do not have access to the mental states of any other being, including those of other organisms.

"Human consciousness is a human and only human attribute."

I would have to agree that this is true by definition.

I do not wish to find consistency in any social science experiment. I have a free will and can consciously decide what to believe. Human understanding and conscioussness is ever evolving. What is true today was not yesterday and will not be tomorrow. Not the whole truth but our truth. Ask Copernicus.

How does this have anything to do with the issues on the table?

edit: fixed color bracket

Royce

Oct30-03, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Tom
The evidence that is collected about the natural world by scientific investigation is certainly more substantial than your personal experiences. Your personal experiences cannot be verified or falsified to anyone but you. Furthermore, your noting that any evidence gathering endeavor is "limited and fallible" only serves to strengthen my point. It is precisely because the gathering of evidence is so limited that the most objective standard must be sought after. And it is because scientists seek that objective standard that there is so little variation in the evidence we collect. The same cannot be said of those who use personal experience as evidence. Put two philosophers in a room who use such a sloppy standard, and they will fight like cats and dogs.

While I agree that my personal experience can not be verified of falsified by any one but myself, the personal experiences of many can be compared and act as support. I did not come up with this view out of a vacuum or on my own as an individual. It is only after I found collaboration from outside sources did I begin to think that these views may have some validity. Nor am I a pure idealist. My views are idealistic and metaphysical in nature so for convience I use those terms. I do not doubt the value of science or the scientific method nor do I doubt the reality of the objective material world. I say that the same rules of evidence or the same strict adherence to such rules can be used to verify the common features of subjective experience.

This is so inaccurate, I can't believe you even said it, especially after being at Physics Forums for so long. Scientists have no need to "take the word of other scientists". Our evidence is objectively verifiable. That means that any scientist can go into a laboratory or observatory, do the same experiment, and get the same result, to within some experimental error.

No it is not inaccurate. Only a handful of scientist have the means and opportunity to actually perform the experiments and verify the data. Once collaboration is found from independant sources then there is no need to do this over and over again. others read the published works and take the word of the authors that it is correct and accurate or sometimes find errors and/or mistakes. Books are published and the subject is taught in schools and colleges whether right or not. Much of what I was taught in high school and college has since been proven wrong but at the time it was the accepted scientific knowledge at the time.
I would assume that you like the rest or most of use get your information by reading books, articles and papers. I seriousdly doubt that you yourself verify scientifically everything that you accept as true or correct. It that not taking other peoples word for the truth. Yes some scientist can and do verify or disprove another scientists work. You and anybody else can also test what I and others have written of what we have "seen" of "found." It may take a few dozen years of meditation and study but then so does scientific study.

You don't get it.

What you do say is that there is a some "super mind", and you do this without having ever observed the behavior of the "other body". For that there is no justification, and that was my point.
[QUOTE]

Yes I do get it. I do observe in a purely subjective way this super mind that I call God and the Oneness of the universe. It is not just my personal experience but that of many, a number of them members here a PF that describe the same phenomenon in almost the same words.
I never wrote of the experiences of mine until others asked me specifically or all of us generally and others started writing of their own experiences. With this collaboration and affermation I began to form my views and began writing about them.

[QUOTE]
As it stands, the above is false. The Big Bang theory, string theory, and QM are all both verifiable and falsifiable. Your idealism is neither. Perhaps you would like to cast it in a form that is both verifiable and falsifiable, by something other than personal experience? By some test an independent observer can do, and on whose results can concur with you?

It may be my ignorance or my misunderstanding but here I think that you and mentat are wrong. From what I have read and seen as last as last Tuesday ther is no way to test string theory yet and no way to test its predictions again according to PBS's NOVA and author/host Brian Greene. The Big Bang theory is based on the present expansion of the universe played backwards to its ultimate conclusion. The COBE supports this with the measurement of background radiation but none of this is hard scientific evidence that proves anything nor does the BB make any scientific predictions. If I am wrong in this Please direct me to a site or book that explains or shows this differently.

Until you do that, your idealism does not have even a sliver of the plausibility of any of those scientific theories.

But, Tom, I am not the only one nor am I the only one to claim any of this as I have said before. I invite you or anyone else to do the study and work and take the time and make the effort to verify it for yourself. Your experience wll be different than mine or anyone else's but it will all so be remarkably alike in very important ways.

The rest of our pos is much the same. This view of mine is a work in progress and is not complete. I started with a few observations
of reality different from the objective material reality. I am trying to bring it al together in a coherent form. It is almost impossible to argue its points with someone who is an objective materialist. It does however make me think and try to get it more coherent and rational. For this I thank all of you.
While I am not playing devils advocate, I am not an idealist nor am I a materialist but some of both. I believe that the metahysical is real just as real if not more real than the physical.

Tom Mattson

Oct30-03, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Royce
I say that the same rules of evidence or the same strict adherence to such rules can be used to verify the common features of subjective experience.

The rules of evidence that apply to objectively verifiable evidence are such that, when one finds evidence that disagrees with one's viewpoint, one changes one's viewpoint.

The rules of evidence that apply to subjectively verifiable evidence are such that, when one finds evidence that disagrees with one's viewpoint, one rejects the offending evidence out of hand.

They are not the same!

No it is not inaccurate. Only a handful of scientist have the means and opportunity to actually perform the experiments and verify the data.

(snip)

I would assume that you like the rest or most of use get your information by reading books, articles and papers. I seriousdly doubt that you yourself verify scientifically everything that you accept as true or correct. It that not taking other peoples word for the truth. Yes some scientist can and do verify or disprove another scientists work.

Right, I have not done every experiment that can be done. But during my education I have done a significant number of them, and I have analyzed plenty of data taken by others. I have done enough experimental work to know the difference between objective and subjective evidence.

You and anybody else can also test what I and others have written of what we have "seen" of "found." It may take a few dozen years of meditation and study but then so does scientific study.

There is no way for me to test your personal experience. Furthermore, even if I did "test" it and come to agree with you, I would have to do so only by completely disregarding the subjective "evidence" of equally sincere people who reach the opposite conclusion. This is the same problem I keep pointing out.

It may be my ignorance or my misunderstanding but here I think that you and mentat are wrong.

Yes, it is your misunderstanding. I said that those theories are verifiable and falsifiable. That does not mean that they have been tested, it means that their claims are of the logical structure that they can be tested, when technology catches up. Your claims, on the other hand, can only be verified or falsified definitively when humans develop the ability to directly access each other's mental states, as well as the mental states of this "god" you speak of.

But, Tom, I am not the only one nor am I the only one to claim any of this as I have said before. I invite you or anyone else to do the study and work and take the time and make the effort to verify it for yourself. Your experience wll be different than mine or anyone else's but it will all so be remarkably alike in very important ways.

And as I keep saying, there are plenty of people who have "found" the opposite conclusion by subjective experience. You can only claim that you have "evidence" by disregarding that.

While I am not playing devils advocate, I am not an idealist nor am I a materialist but some of both. I believe that the metahysical is real just as real if not more real than the physical.

I still don't know what you mean by "metaphysical". Metaphysics is not about some fuzzy glowing "energy" floating around out there, it is a human discipline that seeks to make sense of the world around us.

In any case, you still have not addressed the most important part of my posts, namely the argument that your whole position is internally inconsistent. I don't reject your view merely because it starts from different premises as mine. I also reject it because it is illogical in and of itself.

Mumeishi

Oct31-03, 05:08 AM

Tom,

You have my respect for your intelligent and level-headed critique of Idealist nonsense.

Keep up the good work!

pelastration

Oct31-03, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
... Idealist nonsense.

Your very nice animated logo shows that reality has many ways of expression. Thinking, consiousness and all mental processes are of course also 'energy'.
I think Royce refers to that.

Tom is right that personal experience is not exchangeable.

And as said you have a nice avatar! You made it yourself?

Mumeishi

Oct31-03, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by pelastration
Your very nice animated logo shows that reality has many ways of expression.

Absolutely - and some of its manifestations are even more incredible than my avatar!

Thinking, consiousness and all mental processes are of course also 'energy'.

I think this is a source of philosphical confusion, in terms of the 'hard problem of consciousness'. The brain is ultimately energy, but the mind is not identical to the brain. Mental states are what the brain (and thus the enrgy) is doing. But that's another topic.

I think Royce refers to that.

Where?

And as said you have a nice avatar! You made it yourself?

I wish I had. I found it elsewhere, and resized it, reduced the number of colours and halved the frame rate to make it permissable here. I couldn't resist it.

Royce

Oct31-03, 10:21 AM

I referred to it in another thread on this forum in a discussion with mentat.

If from the materialist view point all that exist is matter and energy. Thought, thinking, is obviously not matter so it must be energy. The mind being made up of pure thought must then be pure energy. The brain is the hardware and wiring that makes all of this possible. The mind, energy, is the result of the brains activity.
Since energy can and does effect matter, our minds and thoughts can and do effect the matter that is our bodies and through our bodies effect the rest of our material world. Thus thought which is subjective can effect and control matter which is material.

I expanded on this saying that the mind may be the portal through which the spiritual realm of reality interacts with the material reality. The spiritual world is in this instance, God, the Creator.
Since I am not allowed to use the terms idealism or metaphysics because in my ignorance I use them wrongly , I must refer to this part of reality as the spiritual reguardless of its unfavorable connotations.

My view point is that there are three facets of reality, the spiritual, the subjective and the material and that they are all interactive and merely parts of the one ultimate reality. Also, that the spiritual, God, is the ultimate or prime cause of all that is.
That the material is the effect rather than the cause. This I have in other threads compared to the three characteristics of Man, the spiritual or soul which is part of the spirit of God, the subjective mind, and the material body. I have said numerous times that this is only my opinion and view point and that I have no physical material or objective support or evidence.

Mentat and I have been having ongoing conversations and discussions on this and similar topics since I first joined the PF's and of course others have joined in and followed these discussions. I often refer to things that have been said at other times in other threads. I realize that this can be hard to follow and make what I say incoherent,illogical and even foolish if taken at face value out of context of the ongoing dialog.

I also say that there is evidence that is anecdotal and subjective that supports and afferms this view point and that it is not original with me nor just my personal experience and thoughts that have lead to this view point.

This is as simple, clear and consise as I can make it.

Tom Mattson

Oct31-03, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Royce
If from the materialist view point all that exist is matter and energy.

Materialists put matter and energy in the same category of existence. This equivocation is warranted by Einstein's relativity, wherein mass and energy are found to be equivalent. I would say that the real categories of existence are, roughly:

1. Concrete Objects: Things that take up space.
2. Abstract Objects: Things that exist as concepts.

Category #1 is held to be independent of consciousness, while Category #2 is completely dependent on it. Abstract objects cannot be without a mind to think of them.

Thought, thinking, is obviously not matter so it must be energy. The mind being made up of pure thought must then be pure energy. The brain is the hardware and wiring that makes all of this possible. The mind, energy, is the result of the brains activity.

Thought is not energy. If it were, then one should be able to convert one's thoughts into matter a la Einstein. If that were the case, I would have thought myself up a real, material Porsche 911 convertible a long time ago.

Thought is something the brain does, just like walking is something the legs do. Walking is not energy, any more than thought is.

Since energy can and does effect matter, our minds and thoughts can and do effect the matter that is our bodies and through our bodies effect the rest of our material world. Thus thought which is subjective can effect and control matter which is material.

Hopefully you can see now that this is wrong.

You go on to talk about subjective evidence again, but at no point do you address the argument I gave, and the one to which I keep referring. That being the case, I see no reason to argue against your subjective evidence again.

This is as simple, clear and consise as I can make it.

Thanks for the effort, but I never thought you were being overly complicated, unclear, or longwinded. I just think that what you presented here is both false and illogical, for the reasons I gave.

Mumeishi

Oct31-03, 11:32 AM

If from the materialist view point all that exist is matter and energy. Thought, thinking, is obviously not matter so it must be energy. The mind being made up of pure thought must then be pure energy.

Woah! There's some serious flaws in your argument there friend.
Premise 1: According to the materialist view, all things are either matter or energy.
Premise 2: Thought exists
Premise 3: Thought is 'obviously' not matter
Conclusion: Therefore thought is energy

First of all, there is a variety of materialist views. Anyway, to be more precise, there is only energy, since matter is just a particular form of energy (how does that affect your argument?)

Secondly, the materialist view that all that exists is energy and matter is not necessarily correct. And is it clear that they mean that this is the only sort of property that exists - the only defining characteristics to describe reality, or could they just mean that this is the only fundamental sort of 'substance'? To illustrate my question, what is the difference between a 20kg mountain bike and a 20kg microwave oven? The answer is form, or organisation. What is the difference between a 1kJoule telephone message wishing you luck and a 1kJ telephone message of abuse? Again the answer is form, organisation or information.

I would argue that mental states are informational properties of the brain. It doesn't really matter what the brain is composed of, all that matters is the information it has and what it does with it.

The brain is the hardware and wiring that makes all of this possible. The mind, energy, is the result of the brains activity.
Since energy can and does effect matter, our minds and thoughts can and do effect the matter that is our bodies and through our bodies effect the rest of our material world. Thus thought which is subjective can effect and control matter which is material.

I think you are confused. Matter does not produce energy. Matter is energy, and energy only changes form it is neither created nor destroyed.

I expanded on this saying that the mind may be the portal through which the spiritual realm of reality interacts with the material reality. The spiritual world is in this instance, God, the Creator.
Since I am not allowed to use the terms idealism or metaphysics because in my ignorance I use them wrongly , I must refer to this part of reality as the spiritual reguardless of its unfavorable connotations.

Hmmm... Perhaps you could use the term 'Celestial Realm' or 'Astral Plane' - that's essentially what you are saying.

My view point is that there are three facets of reality, the spiritual, the subjective and the material and that they are all interactive and merely parts of the one ultimate reality. Also, that the spiritual, God, is the ultimate or prime cause of all that is.
That the material is the effect rather than the cause. This I have in other threads compared to the three characteristics of Man, the spiritual or soul which is part of the spirit of God, the subjective mind, and the material body. I have said numerous times that this is only my opinion and view point and that I have no physical material or objective support or evidence.

Hmmm... How would they interact anyway? By the way, energy is not 'spiritual' any more than matter is - it is 100% physical.

I also say that there is evidence that is anecdotal and subjective that supports and afferms this view point and that it is not original with me nor just my personal experience and thoughts that have lead to this view point.

Like what? Anecdotes don't count for much in the world of science, except inspiration to start collecting real data parhaps.

Royce

Oct31-03, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Tom
Materialists put matter and energy in the same category of existence. This equivocation is warranted by Einstein's relativity, wherein mass and energy are found to be equivalent. I would say that the real categories of existence are, roughly:

1. Concrete Objects: Things that take up space.
2. Abstract Objects: Things that exist as concepts.

Category #1 is held to be independent of consciousness, while Category #2 is completely dependent on it. Abstract objects cannot be without a mind to think of them.

Yes, Tom, I agree with everything that you say here. I was invovled in the original dscussion in another thread and was using his definition of martialism. He would not admit that any abstrat or subjecttive thing actually exists, now he will not even admit that thought exists or that thinking is made up of thoughts. I was therefore very limited in what I could discuss and the way that I could discuss it. In our world, the one that we actually live in rather than Einstein's world it is convient to speak of matter and energy as seperate forms of material, even though we know that they are really diffent forms of the same thing.

Thought is not energy. If it were, then one should be able to convert one's thoughts into matter a la Einstein. If that were the case, I would have thought myself up a real, material Porsche 911 convertible a long time ago.

Again I was addressing Mentat and trying to make the point that thought exists. As thought is the result of electrochemical processes of the physical brain, information is encoded on the energy produced by these processes thus it can be said that thought is or consists of energy, that thought is the result of a physical process involving energy and thus exists. I think that when looked at this way it is a valid point, a means of tying the objective and subjective realm together and allowing the subjective to exist in Mentats material world.
Using E=MC^2 It would take a whole lot of thought to make even a hubcap much less a 911.

Thought is something the brain does, just like walking is something the legs do. Walking is not energy, any more than thought is.

No, walking is not energy but it does take energy to walk and the command impulses that the brain sends to the legs to walk is a form of electrchemical energy, just as thought must be as that is the only known media in which the brain works.

Hopefully you can see now that this is wrong.

Hopefully you can see now that what I am saying, while it may not be in presice scientific language, is thought is a form of energy or at least impossed on or encoded in electrochemical energy.

You go on to talk about subjective evidence again, but at no point do you address the argument I gave, and the one to which I keep referring. That being the case, I see no reason to argue against your subjective evidence again.
__________________________________

Royce, tell me, how can you know something apart from perceiving it? And furthermore, how can I know that you know something, apart from verifying your perceptions with my own?

Until you or anyone else can answer that satisfactorily, I'm sticking with what I said.
___________________________________

Tom I think that this statement is what you are referring to above.
The answer is of course that We can't know anyhing apart from perceivig it; nor can you or anybody else know without verifying themselves my perception. I can only write about them as best I can and you can only compare what I say with your own experiences or with others who have written about this. This is why this whole topic is philosopy and not science. If we could verify these thing with ibjective evidence then it would become science. As I said we can only take each others word for it. This is not the exact opposite of what we do in science, especially those of us who are not scientist.

Thanks for the effort, but I never thought you were being overly complicated, unclear, or longwinded. I just think that what you presented here is both false and illogical, for the reasons I gave.

No, tom, thank you for making me make the effort to make my thinking as clear to myself as I can so that I can better express myself and my thoughts.

Part of the reason that I am here is to bounce my thoughts off of other to see it they have any validy and logic or if they are just mental rambings or masterbation. It is all to easy to fool ourselves into thinking that we are brilliantly cleaver until we expose our ideas to others and find what an *** we can make of ourselves.

Mentat

Oct31-03, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Royce
Please read that part of my post again. You say I am wrong then say the same thing that I did. First we perceive. All perceptions are subjective. perceptions in this case are interpretation of our sensory inputs.

No, you implied that the primary experience is of that which only exists in our own mind (subjective experience), when in fact the first thing we experience is the objective...we can't even contemplate subjectivity until long after we've accepted objectivity.

We have been over this before, Mentat. There is no evidence that the Big Bang actually took place. The only real evidence that supports it is the value of the background microwave radiation detected by COBE
is the same or nearly so as it would be if the BB did take place about when we think that it would. If you have other hard evidence of the BB then please direct me to it because I have yet to be able to find it.

How about the fact that the Universe is expanding? That is also a prediction of the Big Bang theory.

I base my comment about string theory on what little I have read and mainly on the NOVA program that I watched Tuesday evening called the Elegant Universe hosted by Brian Green. Those are the only two theories that I mentioned anything about. So maybe you had better tell Brian Greene and John Gribbin that they are not educated enough in those subjects to make comments.

They do not say that you cannot prove string theory, or that it's based on mere conjecture. Ed Witten (who'd be my idol, if I didn't already have a God), has already postulated empirical ways to test M-Theory.

I have to get off-line right now. Sorry. I will continue response tomorrow, maybe, but I think you should heed what Tom has been saying; I think he's pretty much covered my side of the debate better than I could hope to.

Royce

Oct31-03, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Woah! There's some serious flaws in your argument there friend.
Premise 1: According to the materialist view, all things are either matter or energy.
Premise 2: Thought exists
Premise 3: Thought is 'obviously' not matter
Conclusion: Therefore thought is energy

First of all, there is a variety of materialist views. Anyway, to be more precise, there is only energy, since matter is just a particularform of energy (how does that affect your argument?)

First please read my reply to Tom above as you both put forth a number of the same arguments. Next that energy is all there is actually makes my point easier to make it we can agree that even within a materialistic paradigm, thought and thinking does exist.
Mentat would not allow me that luxury. I had to show that thoughts were the result of electrochemical activity of the brain and thus electrochemical energy, a result of material processes so that they would be allowed to exists in his materialistic world.

Secondly, the materialist view that all that exists is energy and matter is not necessarily correct. And is it clear that they mean that this is the only sort of property that exists - the only defining characteristics to describe reality, or could they just mean that this is the only fundamental sort of 'substance'? To illustrate my question, what is the difference between a 20kg mountain bike and a 20kg microwave oven? The answer is form, or organisation. What is the difference between a 1kJoule telephone message wishing you luck and a 1kJ telephone message of abuse? Again the answer is form, organisation or information.

I would argue that mental states are informational properties of the brain. It doesn't really matter what the brain is composed of, all that matters is the information it has and what it does with it.

Unfortunately information does not exist ether in mantat's materialistic world. A number of us have tried to get across that very point but were unable to.

I think you are confused. Matter does not produce energy. Matter is energy, and energy only changes form it is neither created nor destroyed.

I did not say, or at least mean to say, that matter produces energy'
What I meant was the the brain work with electrochemical energy and converts it or modifies this energy by impress or encoding information on it. In order to make any point or discuss at all with Mentat I was forced to argue totally within the strict materialistic view and limits that he created.

Hmmm... How would they interact anyway? By the way, energy is not 'spiritual' any more than matter is - it is 100% physical.

This I have not yet figured out myself. I had enough problem coming up with how the subjective realm of thought can effect the objective material realm of matter.

Like what? Anecdotes don't count for much in the world of science, except inspiration to start collecting real data parhaps.

That is why this is philosophy and not science. This is the philosophy section of the Physics forum and not one of the scientific
sections or boards.

Rader

Oct31-03, 06:41 PM

This thread in this forum has a lot of pros and cons. All of our own opinions are based on who we are and what we have read and obsorbed and accepted in our lifetime for one reason or another, be they from what ever source. There is a lot of important minds out there that agree and disagree with many of us.

Let me quote the ideas of the eminent theoretical physicist David Bohm, he was one of Einsteins old collaborators.

He sees things as implicit holgrafic order. This discovery has converted holografics in a fundamental element of the scientific world. His inspired work on holgrafics has created a model of the universe envolving multiple paradoxes in cuantum mechanics. According to Bohm the world we perceive through the five sences and the nervous system with or without the use of scientific instruments only represents a small fragment of reality. From his point of view what we percieve constituts explained order, a partial aspect of a larger matrix that denominates implied order. In other words what we perceive as reality is similar to a holgrafic projection coming from a superior matrix. So the vision of Bohm of implied order is described at a level that is unacessable to our senses. Read his book "The totality of implicit order" a vision that offers modern physics the existing relationship between consciousness and matter. Bohm says the reality is a total reality, coherant and implied in a interminable process of change called holomovement. From this point of view all structures in the universe are only abstract. So it is that no matter how hard we try to describe objects, entities or events, we have to come to the conclusion admitting that all are derived from a indifinable unrecognizable totality. According to Bohm the holografic theory that illustrates the idea that energy, light and matter are all composites of pacekts of interference waves that interchange information between all other energy, light and matter directly or indirectly that they have made contact. So each fragment of energy and matter constitute a microcosmos enclosed in the totality of it all. So should we not surmise then, that life in terms of inanimate matter. Matter and life<>matter and consciousness
are abstractions of holmovement, that is to say abstrations of a indivisable totality that can not be seperated. Whatever perception or whatever knowledge including so called scientific does not constitute objective reality but a creative activity comparable to artistic expression. We can not measure the true reality because reality is essentially unmeasurable. Study the work of David Bohm and Karl Pibram a neurofisiologist if you wish more info. Bohms holografic model gives us the revolutionary possibility to understand the relationship that exists between the part and the totality.
[8)]

Mentat

Nov1-03, 12:09 PM

Royce, I'm goint to take the advice I was given long ago, by a very wise friend, and "stop kicking this dead horse". I think that Tom and Mumeishi are doing excellent without me, and I don't think that any of us can convince you that your beliefs are wrong, since belief is beyond proof and beyond objectivity. If you believe in something, and believe it beyond logic and science, then how could you possibly be convinced otherwise?

btw, the person who told me to stop kicking the dead horse was you, on another thread where belief stood in the way of pure rationalization. I'm taking your good advice this time [:)].

Royce

Nov1-03, 12:35 PM

Mentat, I don't think that it is fair at all to keep throwing my own words back in my face. Just like you playing the devils advocate I am defending or supporting a philosophical position that I don't hold as a personal belief. I was a game in which I was trying to score, make points within your strict limits and definitions. It was an enjoyable exercise in mental gymnastics. Whether you admit it or not I think that I did pretty well.

Now with Tom, if he decides to continue with the discussion and Mumeishi the game has changed and we are starting all over with different definitions and limits.

I do believe that my view and my points are valid as far as they go but is is still too simplistic and needs filling out. The question of objective reality vs subjective and spiritual reality will never be satisfactorily answered here or anyplace else on earth. It will always be subjective and suportable only by subjective evidence. There is no way that objective evidence can apply to a purely subjective topic. It is and always will be a point of view of philosophy and never science.

There is no way that I can argue sujectivism against an objective materialist as he would never except purely subjective evidence.
I think Tom and I are very close to agreement with the exception that I am coming from a spiritual paradigm and he as a scientist can see nor accept any evidence of the spiritual. I think that we do come together in the belief of the objective and subjective.

I'm sure that we will soon be pitting our wits again on another thread until then, my friend.