Properties at the fundamental scales

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Canute
Unfortunately it appears to be impossible to prove anything at all about consciousness. So we must stick to what we know and not be constrained in our thinking by the limits of proof.

This is not a great loss since we can only construct contingent proofs anyway, and such proofs just lead us back to all the well known undecidable questions of western science and metaphysics.

This may not appeal to you if you're into proofs, but we have little choice. It seems that reality lies just beyond the reach of proofs. If it didn't I'm sure we'd have proved something about it by now.

In some really simply ways science has 'proven' (existent) some, or many, of these kinds of things, to have measurable outcomes, and seemingly 'driven' sourcing, but without the ability to demonstrate the "cause/effect" lineage, they remain as experiments that simply beg questions, and answers, inasmuch as they are afforded a kind of statistical proof, but not 'Modus Operandi' (M.O.) proof, hence we run ourselves collectively in circles trying to find extrinsic evidence that proves the M.O.

What that says, is that there is evidence that shows people who predict things have some talent at it, or people who can practise the "remote viewing" phenomenon can be 'statisized', hence probabilities of outcome, but no one can yet prove the intrinsic (or extrinsic) "functioning operator" of the event...sort of like we would need to measure the "brain's wave's traveling between the two people" something like that...

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by Canute
I don't really understand that reply. What did I 'cop out' of? Do you think I'm suggesting that nothing exists?

i meant that it may appear to be a cop out and it may appear so if I say that consciousness is that fundamental, ultimate, reality thingy or however you phrased it. you've never copped out in my life as far as i can tell as evidenced by what I've read. I'm sorry if it seemed disrespectful or in error for me to say... words can be quite inadequate sometimes, can't they?

i think your LIKE a set theorist: they postulate in axiom 0, so to speak, that SOMETHING exists. i think you would say it is a self-evident FACT that SOMETHING exists without a doubt. what is that something and what is the best name for it and what is it's nature? we watch it everyday through the 'eye' of the I.

 

[Ilja]

Originally posted by dune

My question is this: how does one explain properties at the fundamental level?

Incorrect question. One does not explain properties at the fundamental level. Properties at the fundamental level have
to be postulated.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Ilja
Incorrect question. One does not explain properties at the fundamental level. Properties at the fundamental level have
to be postulated.

sort of disagree with that as postulated is reserved when exclusive to unprovables, fundamental properties are provables, as are properties at fundamental levels...'postulationals' need only remain, as such, in unprovable situations...'Mind' as an eg.

 

[phoenixthoth]

every now and again, a postulate is precisely correct.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
every now and again, a postulate is precisely correct.

If that is for me I agree, just that the ones that end up being seen as "precisely correct" are the ones that have verifiablity or substantibility, not usually the ones that deal in realms that are metaphysical or un-substantable...

 

[phoenixthoth]

often what is un-substantiable for one is not for another. crackpot theories are un-substantiable but so was general relativity until there were tools enough to substantiate it. I'm not saying all crackpot theories are worthy of belief or your credulity but i must add that this consiousness has substantiated what cannot be explained to those who ahve not substantiated it themselves. but once you have substantiated it, then you have substantiated it for yourself.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
often what is un-substantiable for one is not for another. crackpot theories are un-substantiable but so was general relativity until there were tools enough to substantiate it. I'm not saying all crackpot theories are worthy of belief or your credulity but i must add that this consiousness has substantiated what cannot be explained to those who ahve not substantiated it themselves. but once you have substantiated it, then you have substantiated it for yourself.

Agreed! just that, it is (usually) a distinguishable feature as to whether, or not, a postulate can ever be substantiated, or remains thought of in a non substantiable realm, only...they are distinguishable "separatable" (for lack of another word) (sorta)

 

[phoenixthoth]

call me a crackpot but i think important postulates of consciousness theory will one day be substantiated by even scientists. but that makes no difference to those who've already substantiate the postulates for themselves.

suppose for a second that there was a domain filled with that that by definition cannot be substantiated. then how would any postulates regarding this domain ever be substantiated (or refuted)? answer that question scientifically and you'll have yourself a way to prove to scientists postulates about consciousness, maybe.

could it be that one way to do it is to call this domain substance and calling the other aspect of the domain (for want of better terminology) holographic?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

What your talking about, now, has been sought for centuries, never found either, as all is simply subjective testimony, all...that is why science takes up the idea of substantiation, external proofs as it becomes more difficult to deny the obviousness of what can be shown/placed/done right in front of you, or a 'pathway' of explanation following standards of scientific 'rigors' that lead to explanations of "substantiably provable events" something like "quark particle collisions" that kind of stuff...

Otherwise, all you have is Subjective Attestament, means?

 

[phoenixthoth]

i think that if you ask a any good scientist, he or she will tell you that objectivity is a total illusion.

i'm curious to know mad scientist's view on this for i see him as a good, but perhaps a rank and file, scientist.

what scientists do so incredibly well is carefully observing the universe and attempt to perfectly observe. now if one has not been careful in their observation of it, then they have almost no right to state their observations are facts, now do they?

the problem with consciousness studies is that it is often centered on others' consciousness and the external. one, except perhaps any chat-bots posting here, is evidently born with their own consciousness to carefully witness. so carefully observe your own consciousness and maybe you'll be able to substantiate something about yourself in the scientific sense.

i am not swayed one way or the other when a scientist tells me "this is not what i witness." i have to admit that i might be wrong but i doubt that in the extreme. call me doubting thomas if you will. better put: i do not doubt that you do not witness what i do through my eyes but neither can i doubt that i do witness.

is what i witness "real" or "unreal" or "substantiable" or "nonsubstantiable" or "of substance" or "not of substance" or "holographic" or "nonholographic" or "concrete" or "abstract" or "mundane" or "spiritual" or "4 dimensional" or "hyper dimensional" or "effable" or "ineffable" or ...?

who knows and who cares?

i can say with certainty that i do witness and i am putting every ounce of myself into the effort of ... not bearing what i witness falsely.