The reality of 'Mind'.

  • Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date
  • #26
Lifegazer


Originally posted by Mentat
No, you may have started out/intended to prove your premise,
but that is not what you ended up doing (in any of your threads). You always seemed to end up just explaining the consecuences of such a reality. I presented the Hurdles thread in order to counter the very premise. Until there is proof that this premise is even valid beyond my counter-arguments, I don't see any reason to pursue it.
Your counter-arguments were terribly naive. It got to the point where I had to ask Tom to put you straight on a couple of points... and he even obliged! - So you must have been all over the place.
You're too sure of yourself, which is a bad thing when you make so many bad mistakes of reasoning and you're still so young. It indicates that you're not too keen in pursuing any idea unless it matches your preconceived idea of reality.
Like 90% of the people in here, you'll evade and ignore and berate any ideas about God; but you will never berate your own belief in materialism.
Your mind has already set, like theirs. You shall evade, ignore and berate me. But you will not talk with me sincerely.
Do you want to be a good philosopher? Or do you want to be a good servant of materialism? You cannot be both. Philosophy built upon intuition is not philosophy.
Yes I know that you are asking us to accept that premise (finally, s/he admits it!),
Do you ever read what I write? I asked the reader to accept my premise so that he may better his understanding of my philosophy.
My usual style is to build my conclusion (about God) from our knowledge of the Universe. However; in this specific thread, I thought I'd show you why the conclusion (about God) can actually be shown to build to an explanation of why the universe works the way it does, in relation to this premise.
I have shown how the Laws of physics would be expected to be like they are (Relativity, and QM), since those laws are compatible with my hypothesis. When was the last time you heard someone present a logical argument to show how the Laws of physics are compatible with an external realty?
... It becomes farcical. Intelligent science-types start resorting to wording such as "Logic might be different in an external reality.", thus avoiding my reason to show that external 4-d reality makes no sense. Remember that Tom?
And yet, it is OUR reason which has deciphered the reality we can see, scientifically. Hence if 'our' reason is good enough to scientifically identify what it is seeing, then 'our' reason is certainly good enough to talk about the reality of these 'Laws'.
Most of you guys aren't being honest with yourselves. Least of all myself. And it stands-out like a sore-thumb. I might as well be talking amongst a congregation of Christians. But I plod-on. I've noticed one-or-two with an open mind.

And before you accuse me of the same thing, then remember this: "My usual style is to build my conclusion (about God) from our knowledge of the Universe.".
Not one person in this forum will tell you otherwise, unless they lie.
My philosophy is built upon knowledge. Materialism is built upon an assumption... an intuitive guess.
 
  • #27
Lifegazer


Originally posted by ahrkron
By construction, you hypothesis is compatible with every confirmed physical law, relativity included.
EVERYBODY READ THIS POST.
... Pardon me, but I do find your statement significant, even if you do brush-over it yourself.
When was the last time you heard a 'theory of everything' which was compatible with the Laws of physics?!
This does not give any support to your hypothesis because it is unfalsifiable (and hence, scientifically, it is utterly irrelevant).
Since my hypothesis is founded upon scientific-law, then my hypothesis is proved via the experiments which have confirmed these laws. If my hypothesis is irrelevant, then so is Einstein's work. My posts here are not just philosophical, as they build upon scientific knowledge. My posts are relevant to science. For they show that science should be concentrating its future research in-line with a completely-radical working-theory (if I am correct). And so; what if I am correct? Are there any scientists who might be actively-working to connect the mind to our physical perceptions?
The question I should ask you all - and demand of you an answer - is, do you think that the Mind-hypothesis (being compatible with physical-law) is worth serious consideration, by the establishment of science itself? Seriously.
You acknowledge the credibility of my hypothesis; yet still seem to discount it as a possibility. Why??
 
  • #28
1,648
0


Originally posted by Lifegazer
Like 90% of the people in here, you'll evade and ignore and berate any ideas about God; but you will never berate your own belief in materialism.
Materialism is not to be understood as a belief system, like religion is.

My philosophy is built upon knowledge. Materialism is built upon an assumption... an intuitive guess.
The only thing we have seen here, is that you put forward a central thesis, namely the opposite of that of materialism, that in first instance there is some Higher Being or Mind, and only secondary there is material existence.

This premise is not supported, because it lacks proof.
There is not realy a rational reason to put it forward, although the very nature of the underlying issue (See: The Fundamental Question) makes it hard to understand in a rational way. But there is no necessity from logic to assume the existence of a "higher being".
So it is an unsupported assumption. In fact, the very nature of this kind of assumption, is that one has to believe in it. The assumption does not, out of itself, poses itself.

Materialism is more as "just an assumption", and more profound as "just intuitive". Material existence positively states itself.

As far as I can see it, there is a world that itself proofs it's existence. One must be very stubborn not to see this proof of material existence.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
1,648
0


Originally posted by Lifegazer
My usual style is to build my conclusion (about God) from our knowledge of the Universe
There is only one way to put God in, namely when there is lack of knowledge. Although we do have knowledge about the universe, the underlying theories are not that well established, and there is obviously lack of knowledge in that terrain. In other words, still we miss the complete picture, in which everything fit together. The position migh even be, that we will never get a complete picture of the universe.
What we know of religion is, is that it comes up with the thesis that 'God did it', when we essentially miss knowledge about some thing.
Formerly this was the case in explaining life itself, and how it had formed and was shaped. But in increasing manner, we are certain that natural processes have caused life to evolve, and have erased the religious explenations in that field. Our knowledge is increasing, and we now are struggeling with the larger issues, about the origin and fate of the universe and the building blocks of matter. We have increased our knowledge on that terrain too, but the field is that immense (infinitely large, supposedly) that at this moment in time, we do not yet have a satisfactory explenation for explaining the universe in all it's details. That means: there are a lot of places where our knowledge is simply missing, and therefore on occasions an explenation as 'God dit it' can be put forward. Which is not to be understood otherwise then that we have gaps in knowledge, but which can and ultimately will be filled with real knowledge.

The point I'd like to make here that any explenation involving 'God' is not increasing our knowledge, but is just a sign that we have missing knowledge.
 
  • #30
1,648
0


Originally posted by Lifegazer
EVERYBODY READ THIS POST.
... Pardon me, but I do find your statement significant, even if you do brush-over it yourself.
When was the last time you heard a 'theory of everything' which was compatible with the Laws of physics?!
The problem however with your "Theory of Everything" is that it explains everything, yet nothing. It is not even an explenation, cause to explain something, means we can explain it in terms of things already understood. So, if you want to explain things in terms of 'God', then please go ahead, but firstly explain us 'God'.
So, in other words, every single things can be explained in such a way, wich leaves us just with one crucial question: How to explain God? The point is, of course, that to explain God, the task to be fullfilled is at least as hard, as the explenation for which the existence of such an entity was first used for.
In other words, the process of explaining end up in a circular fashion, in which we meet again the complexity of the issue, we first wanted to understand.
So, instead of having an increase in knowledge, we end up having precesisly as much knowledge as we had without the explenation involving God. Which, obviously, is not very usefull.

It is for this reason that real science keeps a healthy distance from this, and establishes itself on the only feasable grounds of Materialism instead.
 
  • #31
(Q)
143
0
Lifey

The question I should ask you all - and demand of you an answer - is, do you think that the Mind-hypothesis (being compatible with physical-law) is worth serious consideration, by the establishment of science itself?

*brutally honest mode on*

Since you demanded - it is by far and away the most irrational form of nonsense I’ve ever heard and has absolutely nothing to do with science.

You acknowledge the credibility of my hypothesis; yet still seem to discount it as a possibility. Why??

I don’t know where you get that idea – I see nothing credible about it whatsoever.
 
  • #32
1,648
0
Originally posted by (Q)
Lifey

The question I should ask you all - and demand of you an answer - is, do you think that the Mind-hypothesis (being compatible with physical-law) is worth serious consideration, by the establishment of science itself?

*brutally honest mode on*

Since you demanded - it is by far and away the most irrational form of nonsense I’ve ever heard and has absolutely nothing to do with science.

You acknowledge the credibility of my hypothesis; yet still seem to discount it as a possibility. Why??

I don’t know where you get that idea – I see nothing credible about it whatsoever.
Don't you think this is a bit too straight forwarded?

The only thing LG asks you to do, is just *believe* his hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Eh
718
1
The mind hypothesis does not explain quantum gravity at all. So comparing it to failed TOE's is silly, since the claim that the mind is all does not really attempt to explain anything.
 
  • #34
Eh
718
1
Originally posted by wuliheron
Sorry, I don't have any links, its just not my thing. However, if you look up Complimentarity you'll discover Heisenburg also had a hand in helping to develop that which also focuses on the idea that the observer plays a role in creating reality.

Wheeler has done a great amount of collaboration with Rodger Penrose who also shares this kind of philosophy of consensual reality with all the psychic powers it implies. However, I would also add that Wheeler is a staunch skeptic as well. As you can imagine, these are serious people with little patience for outrageous claims. Understandably, it is a delicate topic in many respects.
That would surprise me, since the term "observer" does not mean conscious being at all. Anything that interacts with a wave will do, be it a rock, planet or person. As such, I don't see how it supports the notion of psychic powers in any way.

I'll see if I can find more about the philosophies of the individuals mentioned above.
 
  • #35
1,944
0
That would surprise me, since the term "observer" does not mean conscious being at all. Anything that interacts with a wave will do, be it a rock, planet or person. As such, I don't see how it supports the notion of psychic powers in any way.

I'll see if I can find more about the philosophies of the individuals mentioned above.
The question is one of epistomology and ontology. Is the observer merely observing or creating reality? Are photons really conscious? Because QM can be viewed from dramatically distinct perspectives like these its interpretation takes on completely new contexts depending upon who you ask.

Penrose wrote a popular book on the subject focused on his own twistor theory which is still highly regarded. Unfortunately, the title escapes me. Again, I'm just not interested in the details of such things. The only aspect of such theories that interests me is the philosophical connections to my own philosophy.
 
  • #36
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
736
1


Originally posted by Lifegazer
EVERYBODY READ THIS POST.
When was the last time you heard a 'theory of everything' which was compatible with the Laws of physics?!


All of them HAVE to be.
Examples: The electroweak unification, the loop formulation of quantum gravity, supergravity, string theory. They cannot claim to be the next step if they are not compatible with confirmed experimental results.
 
  • #37
351
0
Hello LG. Glad you're finally summing up your philosophy, although it's pretty much what I understood it to be. What I'm really looking forward to is proof...but that can wait I suppose, if you have it.

I wanted to give the readers (several did ask me to do this) a more direct understanding of my philosophy - which advocates an ultimate reality of a single Mind - and of how the universe we perceive fits-in, perfectly, with this idea.
Instead of trying to prove that this is the ultimate-reality of 'everything' (which is what I always try to do), this particular post will ask the reader to accept-as-true the premise that Ultimately, there is only a Mind.
Am I correct in assuming that this means you intend to explain your philosophy, rather than prove its validity? That being the case, why are you asking us to concure that all physicists should now attempt to unite your philosophy with physics? Philosophies built to accept any scientific law contribute nothing to its progress, as they improve nothing, and prove nothing.

1. A Mind exists.
This isn't a difficult concept to understand. By direct experience, the reader can identify this premise via its attributes: reasoning-power; knowledge; emotion; will; desire; purpose; imagination; etc..
I also advocate that this 'entity' resides at singularity, and that all things perceived reside within this entity.
Some readers will complain that nothing can exist within a singularity as a singularity is a place of zero-time & zero-space.
Actually, such a complaint is null & void, since a singularity is a place of whole-time and whole-space. Or rather, a singularity is a 'place' of absolute-time and absolute-space (as opposed to fragmented-time and fragmented-space).
Mind exists now, that is undeniable. However, our minds clearly do not exist within a singularity, as we do experience non-zero spacetime. Our minds, therefore, can't be connected in any way to this Mind, as it only exists within one point in space and time. This is therefore self-contradictory.

2. The physical-universe was borne of this Mind.
Again, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. The reader has direct experience of fantasising/dreaming about whole realms of existence within his/her own mind.
If you are indeed simply trying to explain what you philosophy is, nothing is self-contradictory here. However, if you're trying to prove something, you haven't.

3. This Mind is omnipresent. I.e., the Mind is all 'things'.
Whatever the mind thinks about is an extension of its own self... an expression of its own self. Each 'thing' can be considered a finite-aspect of the whole.
This may take a little more consideration. But any form residing within the mind is of the mind.
Therefore, I ask the reader to grapple with the idea that all forms of life within The Mind are expressions of that Mind itself, in a finite & relative environment (which has been created by the The Mind).
Therefore, I advocate that ~each individual~ is The Mind itself - seeing itself from many diverse & relative perspectives with regards to the whole.
A Mind that exists at a single point in spacetime cannot, by definition, occupy all points in spacetime. The Mind is either omnipresent, or it is a singularity. To be both is an imposibility.

Point 4 is incompatible with the definition of a singularity. You can't go around making your own definitions for words, you have to use the same ones the rest of us do. If you wish to create a new concept, you should give it a new word. A singularity is a point is spacetime that can be approached but not occupied. It is not a place where space and time are absolute and whatever else it was you said.

5. Relativity explained.
My recent topic about Relativity has been locked. But those that are interested can still browse through it. The bottom-line is that this Mind-hypothesis is fully-compatible with the fundamental-axioms of Einstein's work. I can explain why each observer sees the same universe from a different perspective of time & space. The establishment decided to lock that topic, despite the fact that not a single person showed that my hypothesis was not compatible with Einstein's work. That challenge remained unanswered.
The Mind Hypothesis was compatible with relativity, since it is built to accomodate any science. SR, however, in no way implied the Mind.

I could discuss many things here. But then it would turn into a mini-book. But here's the bottom-line for your own perception of the universe:-
1. The Mind has created it.
2. It resides at your own point of awareness, and you are its judgements made in relation to the whole. It is not aware of its wholeness here. Its awareness has become fragmented and finite.
Hence the perception of 'you'.
I fail to completely grasp what you're trying to say. That I am a thought of The Mind? That I am a fragment of The Mind?

Before you continue, I think a definition of Mind is in order. What is a mind, when you truly think about it? Something capable of reason. Explain, lifegazer, what is reason?

Take care everybody. --Carter
 
Last edited:
  • #38
1,648
0
Originally posted by CJames
Hello LG. Glad you're finally summing up your philosophy, although it's pretty much what I understood it to be. What I'm really looking forward to is proof...but that can wait I suppose, if you have it.

Am I correct in assuming that this means you intend to explain your philosophy, rather than prove its validity? That being the case, why are you asking us to concure that all physicists should now attempt to unite your philosophy with physics? Philosophies built to accept any scientific law contribute nothing to its progress, as they improve nothing, and prove nothing.

Mind exists now, that is undeniable. However, our minds clearly do not exist within a singularity, as we do experience non-zero spacetime. Our minds, therefore, can't be connected in any way to this Mind, as it only exists within one point in space and time. This is therefore self-contradictory.

If you are indeed simply trying to explain what you philosophy is, nothing is self-contradictory here. However, if you're trying to prove something, you haven't.

A Mind that exists at a single point in spacetime cannot, by definition, occupy all points in spacetime. The Mind is either omnipresent, or it is a singularity. To be both is an imposibility.

Point 4 is incompatible with the definition of a singularity. You can't go around making your own definitions for words, you have to use the same ones the rest of us do. If you wish to create a new concept, you should give it a new word. A singularity is a point is spacetime that can be approached but not occupied. It is not a place where space and time are absolute and whatever else it was you said.

The Mind Hypothesis was compatible with relativity, since it is built to accomodate any science. SR, however, in no way implied the Mind.

I fail to completely grasp what you're trying to say. That I am a thought of The Mind? That I am a fragment of The Mind?

Before you continue, I think a definition of Mind is in order. What is a mind, when you truly think about it? Something capable of reason. Explain, lifegazer, what is reason?

Take care everybody. --Carter
'The Mind' is neither a cause nor an effect of anything, since it is postulated in such a way that it is inexistent (unchanging-existence = no-existence), it lacks any existence, and there fore there is no proof of it's existence.

There is no reason either for the existence of 'The Mind', since it cannot contribute anything to explain there is an existing world, which is eternal changing existence in time and space, and which does not need a reason to exist, and proofs it's own existence because we can interact with anything that exists.

Anyway, the source of the confusion which leads to misinterpretations like LG shows us here, is well known, and is better understood as 'The Fundamental Question' (see the thread with that name).
The peculiarity of the issue involved is that from the context of the issue on hand, we know that there can be no reason (not in the ordinary sense) for the existence of the world. The fact that such a reason can not exists is clear from our ordinary use of reason. We say that A is the case because B is the case. But if we interpret A as being 'the existing world', we come across the fact that there can not be any B to explain that fact.
In an unordinary sense, we may stretch our reasoning beyond the ordinary, and call the reason for the world 'God' or give it any other name, but this ain't helpfull in that it does not increase any real knowledge about the world, nor replaces it.
We end up in circular reasoning. The reason for the world would be God, and the reason for God would be the world. And there is nothing to lift that circularity.
In our ordinary sense, we go about reasoning that the world is an entity on itself, which exists in a spatio temporal way, without begin or end. The world is an enroling process in time and space, which does not have any limit in time and or space. Any form of causality are stricly beyong within that world, and also all reasoning is bound to within the existing world. There is nothing beyond the existing world.

A 'reason' for existing, might however be found from within the perception of the individual mind, who wonders about the real existing world, and how it enfolds. We, living humans, are the only minds that we know of, that do wonder about this, and ask questions about it, but any reasoning that can be implied, is only applicable to the individual mind, or collective mind of humans. The world is what it means to us, the world has no meaning to itself.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
1,944
0
Hi ya CJames, long time no see (ahhh, I've never seen you come to think of it....duh!) I'm gonna but in here if it doesn't drive ya nuts, if it does, just ignore me. :0)

Philosophies built to accept any scientific law contribute nothing to its progress, as they improve nothing, and prove nothing.
This is not quite true. Part of what retarded progress in modern physics was the fact that most physicists at the turn of the last century had narrow minded mechanistic philosophies based on Aristotlian logic. Since then more open ended philosophies have florished that contribute little to the debate as you say. It is by then applying the limits of experimental results to these philosophies that they begin to contribute to the debate as I'll explain in a minute.

Mind exists now, that is undeniable. However, our minds clearly do not exist within a singularity, as we do experience non-zero spacetime. Our minds, therefore, can't be connected in any way to this Mind, as it only exists within one point in space and time. This is therefore self-contradictory.
That's modern physics for ya, crazy ain't it. String theory, bytheway, postulates everything is composed of black holes.

Rodger Penrose's Twistor theory I know less about, but I do know he has speculated the neurons in our brain contain structures that are small enough to interact with quanta. It is through these interactions that he believes we "commune" with the overmind or whatever and researchers have been investigating the possibility. Whether these researchers actually believe Penrose's theory or not, the possibility of at least a serious random number generator for the human mind poses interesting possibilities for AI research.
 
  • #40
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
736
1
Originally posted by wuliheron
That's modern physics for ya, crazy ain't it. String theory, bytheway, postulates everything is composed of black holes.
AFAIK, it doesn't. String theory should be compatible with some general theorems about black hole entropy and Hawking radiation, according to which microscopic black holes would decay extremely fast into "regular" particles. They may be produced in accelerators, but they are not the usual constituents of matter.

Rodger Penrose's Twistor theory I know less about, but I do know he has speculated the neurons in our brain contain structures that are small enough to interact with quanta.
He has hypothesised that some of the structures in neurons do collapse the wavefunction via gravitational interaction. Many people think it is too far-fetched.
 
  • #41
Lifegazer


Originally posted by Tom
The heading of the section of your first post is "Relativity Explained". What's more, you have been trying to pass your ideas off as an explanation of relativity for as long as I have been reading them.
I may have worded that thread wrongly. I can promise you that my intention in discussing Relativity has always been to show how that Law is compatible with my hypothesis, whilst simultaneously trying to show that it is not compatible with the materialist's view that there is a singular external reality. It is not my intention to teach people how the axioms of Relativity were formulated or how the math works. I will always advise anyone who wants to discuss those things to talk to guys such as yourself, Janus, or Arhkron.
No, you weren't. You were emphatically trying to show that SR implies The Mind. I can only take this remark as an indication that you are either lying, or have an absolutely terrible memory. I'll assume it's the latter.
There's some confusion somewhere. If that's my fault, then I apologise.
That's because I agree that your ideas could be compatible with SR.
Then why were you intent on locking the thread? If my point is valid, you should allow the discussion to proceed. Plenty of people seemed interested.
As ahrkron said, your ideas are unfalsifiable
My ideas are actually verifiable, through the laws of physics. Do not overlook the significance of that.
and are thus compatible with anything, including a universe full of 8-headed chickens with laser beams shooting out of their eyes.
LOL.
Look; if my idea was a total crock, then why does it make sense of everything we already know, including the classical:quantum duality of reality? I don't think you give my ideas the respect they deserve.
Honestly, I don't.
 
  • #42
Eh
718
1
Oh? Does the mind idea explain quantum gravity? Does it tell us anything we don't already know?
 
  • #43
Lifegazer
Originally posted by Eh
Oh? Does the mind idea explain quantum gravity? Does it tell us anything we don't already know?
What, specifically, needs explaining about quantum gravity?
Your second question seems to imply that you've always known that existence was occuring in a singular Mind.
 
  • #44
Eh
718
1
You've missed the point. The idea that all existence is just a product of the mind doesn't really explain anything new about that existence. You can make an ontological claim like that, but it won't actually make any predictions about the world itself. For example, how does quantum gravity work in the first place? I say it does not matter, for whatever physical conditions that govern space on quantum scales is found to be correct, you would simply claim the conditions to be a product of the mind.

Unless of course, you know of some theories could be advanced by your hypothesis.
 
  • #45
1,944
0
AFAIK, it doesn't. String theory should be compatible with some general theorems about black hole entropy and Hawking radiation, according to which microscopic black holes would decay extremely fast into "regular" particles. They may be produced in accelerators, but they are not the usual constituents of matter.
Sorry, but you're wrong. There are several ways of interpreting string theory, just as there are several ways of interpreting QM. In both case it is Indetermancy that is the central reason for all the various interpretations. For example, one implication of string theory is that there is really only one electron in the entire universe, it just gets around..... faster than the speed of light to be precise. If you are interested, I got that specific analogy to everything being black holes from a NY Times interview with Edward Witten himself.

One way to think of this is the "mirror world" aspect of M-theory which is a geometric theory. According to this view the forces of nature are accounted for as manifesting themselves in the mirror world. In the mirror world what we see as mass or electrical charge here is manifest as another property of matter like size or momentum. Whatever affects a particle here then also instantaneously affects its mirror world counterpart. In other words, it Quantum Tunnels or is connected via a worm hole to the mirror world.

This is also precisely why string theory is the first theory to postulate serious limitations to black holes that imply they really may not be singularities.

He has hypothesised that some of the structures in neurons do collapse the wavefunction via gravitational interaction. Many people think it is too far-fetched.
I agree, its a bit of a stretch to say the least. However, his twistor theory is dynamite from everything I've heard. One of the very few theories really competitive with String theory.
 
  • #46
Lifegazer
Originally posted by heusdens
Materialism is not to be understood as a belief system, like religion is.
Incorrect.
Religious people assume the existence of God. Materialists assume the existence of an external reality. I can promise you that there is not one jot of proof (observed or reasoned) which supports such an assumption. Hence, this assumption is no more credible than the assumption upon which religious people build their own philosophies.

I've told you this before, but you didn't listen: Just because our inner-perceptions are ordered and consistent (and hence, understood by science), does not mean that they exist externally to the mind.
Also: Science is not a study of external reality. It is a study of internal perception. Fact.
 
  • #47
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
736
1


Originally posted by Lifegazer
Since my hypothesis is founded upon scientific-law, then my hypothesis is proved via the experiments which have confirmed these laws.
Absolutely not. This is not how "experimental proof" works.

In order for a theory (physical or otherwise) to claim that an experimental result gives it any support, the said result should not be part of its initial hypotheses.

What you are trying to do is similar to the following: say you have twenty points on a piece of paper (potential experimental results) and you use two of them (A and B) to draw a straight line (your "theory"). It is transparently obvious, by construction, that the line will go through A and B. Is the line hypothesis "prooved" by the agreement with A and B? of course not.

If my hypothesis is irrelevant, then so is Einstein's work.
No. Here's the difference:

Einstein started with known physics (Maxwell equations), reexplained some of it and indicated what experiments would disagree with classical mechanics. His ideas were relevant because they were testable.

Your hypothesis starts off assuming all known physics gives the right predictions. It does not produce anything close to a prediction, so it cannot be tested for validity. The only thing it allows is some imagery, but as a support for a philosophy of reality is completely unnecesary.

My posts here are not just philosophical, as they build upon scientific knowledge.
You are forced to "build upon" scientific theory because it is evident for everyone that science works. However, you try to impose an interpretation that does not follow from known experimental results, and in doing so, you make seem as if your hypothesis needed to rely on a wrong interpretation of experimental facts.

My posts are relevant to science. For they show that science should be concentrating its future research in-line with a completely-radical working-theory (if I am correct).
As I said, even if reality was the result of an all encompassing ultracomputer simulation, that does not change how science should be done in the least bit, since such simulation still needs to comply with all known results.

And so; what if I am correct? Are there any scientists who might be actively-working to connect the mind to our physical perceptions?
Not in the way you suggest. You do acknowledge that, as a result of your hypothesis, no experimental result would differ in the least bit from what "realist science" (as you may want to call it) would say. Then, why would anybody spend anytime with an interpretation that, admittedly, produces no differences whatsoever (while just adding complications to the description, yet not to any of the math involved)?


The question I should ask you all - and demand of you an answer - is, do you think that the Mind-hypothesis (being compatible with physical-law) is worth serious consideration, by the establishment of science itself?
Frankly, not.


You acknowledge the credibility of my hypothesis; yet still seem to discount it as a possibility. Why?? [/B]
I think it is trivially compatible with what we experience (I definitely wouldn't qualify it as "credible"), but absolutely irrelevant for the description and study of our experiences.
 
  • #48
351
0
I believe there are invisible, undetectable, intangible plates of nachos at every point in existence, mocking us because we cannot eat them. Since they are undetectable, and we will never be able to prove their existence via experiment, only by logic, they do not contradict any known law of physics. Therefore, my philosophy is correct.

I did not write this to mock you lifegazer, I did it to show you what you are doing. This is essentially the same. Just because something doesn't contradict the laws of physics, does not mean it is automatically a truth of the universe.

Wuliheron,
Hi ya CJames, long time no see
Haven't "seen" you for a while either. 'sup?

Since then more open ended philosophies have florished that contribute little to the debate as you say.
The thing is, contribuing little and contributing nothing aren't the same thing. LG's hypothesis makes no predictions of any kind about any discrepancies with present theory once so ever. Not even in the extremes. It is built to accept any physical theory ever discovered, including future ones.

String theory, bytheway, postulates everything is composed of black holes.
Are you sure about that? I think it actually postulates that black holes can be treated like elementary particles. I think it does say something about being able to transform elementary particles into black holes and visa versa, but I don't think it ever says that elementary particles are black holes, just that there is some kind of fundamental link between them.
 
  • #49
1,944
0
I believe there are invisible, undetectable, intangible plates of nachos at every point in existence, mocking us because we cannot eat them. Since they are undetectable, and we will never be able to prove their existence via experiment, only by logic, they do not contradict any known law of physics. Therefore, my philosophy is correct.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......... make mine extra hot!

Haven't "seen" you for a while either. 'sup?
I need to figure out how to convert my avatar to a jpeg or giff.

The thing is, contribuing little and contributing nothing aren't the same thing. LG's hypothesis makes no predictions of any kind about any discrepancies with present theory once so ever. Not even in the extremes. It is built to accept any physical theory ever discovered, including future ones.
That's true of any of the leading theories attempting to explain QM. It's just par for the course due to the fact that, as Stephen Hawking put it, "Quantum Mechanics is basically a theory about what we don't know." Indeterminacy is slippery and all encompassing like paradox, but its still proven incredibly useful. If the theory everything is consciousness is ever shown experimentally to be statistically unlikely to bear fruit it'll be largely ignored. In the meantime it at least shares the illustrious company of Zeno's paradoxes which still provide mathematical inspiration if nothing else.

Are you sure about that? I think it actually postulates that black holes can be treated like elementary particles. I think it does say something about being able to transform elementary particles into black holes and visa versa, but I don't think it ever says that elementary particles are black holes, just that there is some kind of fundamental link between them.
The NY Times science section does get things wrong every now and then, but they quoted Witten himself as I said and it just makes sense from the point of view of the mirror world scenario. What else could inhabit two universes simultaneously?
 
  • #50
3,762
2
Witten's referal to everything being BHs is probably just an analogy. If you took all of Witten's analogies literally, you'd think that M-theory is the blind men's discovery that there is one elephant.
 

Related Threads on The reality of 'Mind'.

  • Last Post
2
Replies
39
Views
21K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
63
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
85
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Top