What Are Others' Perspectives on Reality and Energy?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP)[/color] sure, data could run on a "spiritual medium" but it would still have no way of interacting with the physical realm, and would thus never be noticed by physical beings (like us) at all. (SNoP)[/color]

You keep saying that as if you have some kind of proof, please show it! otherwise, accept that mabey it does happen, and you just haven't figured it out yet, nor how it occurs.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
Alright man, I believe the sarcasm has run its course, don't you? I agree as to the ridiculousness of these ideas, but your starting to get me confused as to when your joking and when your serious . Anyway (merely for the purpose of those who are still confused on this topic), sure, data could run on a "spiritual medium" but it would still have no way of interacting with the physical realm, and would thus never be noticed by physical beings (like us) at all.

What you say would be true, Mentat, if we were purely physical beings; but, we are not just physical but mental and spiritual beings.
We have physical bodies, subjective minds and spirits or souls. All of these interact. We have talked at length about this in other threads and without getting into the objective/subjective thing again, there is more to reality and the universe than merely physical objective material things.

Part of what we are talking about in this thread is mind over matter and the mind and will enabling our bodies to do that which is beyound it's "normal" abilities. There simply is no way to explain what these people can do or make there bodies do in a purely physical or physilogical way. The mind and chi, the life force within, is what allows these things to happen. It is not a trick nor magic but focus and control. I have seen some of these thing happen with my own eyes and have don't a few simple things myself. It is real. It does happen and it is not illusion or delussion.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You keep saying that as if you have some kind of proof, please show it! otherwise, accept that mabey it does happen, and you just haven't figured it out yet, nor how it occurs.

My apologies. I've explained this point numerous times on other threads, and just assumed most would remember what I'd said before...

btw, Dennett brings out this same point in Consciousness Explained...

P1: Any interaction occurring between physical objects is a "physical interaction".
P2: Any interaction occurring between non-physical objects is a "non-physical interaction".
P3: If a non-physical entity wished to interact with a physical entity, there would have to be an intermediary between the two realms that was neither physical nor non-physical (since a physical intermediary wouldn't be any help since one of the entities is already physical, and the same reasoning applies to a non-physical intermediary).
C: Therefore, a non-physical entity cannot interact with a physical one.

As it is, I omitted P4, which is that there can be no entity that is neither physical nor non-physical, since anything that is not physical is, by default, non-physical. However, this appears to me as much too self-evident for me to add it as a proposition without insulting someone's intelligence .

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
What you say would be true, Mentat, if we were purely physical beings; but, we are not just physical but mental and spiritual beings.
We have physical bodies, subjective minds and spirits or souls. All of these interact. We have talked at length about this in other threads and without getting into the objective/subjective thing again, there is more to reality and the universe than merely physical objective material things.

This is, to me, a completely unfounded assumption. No offense, but do you really think it is correct to just state these as "truths", when so many, very intelligent, people and I disagree with those supposed "truths"? I don't know, but it just seems like added assumptions with no purpose...

Part of what we are talking about in this thread is mind over matter and the mind and will enabling our bodies to do that which is beyound it's "normal" abilities. There simply is no way to explain what these people can do or make there bodies do in a purely physical or physilogical way. The mind and chi, the life force within, is what allows these things to happen.

First off, there are indeed explanations (I don't know how to explain all of them, but I'm sure somebody does) that fit into a Materialistic paradigm.

But, more importantly, as per deductive logic, along with scientific reasoning on the matter, if these things (mind and chi) really had an effect on the physical realm, then they themselves would also (by default) have to be physical.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP)[/color] P1: Any interaction occurring between physical objects is a "physical interaction".
P2: Any interaction occurring between non-physical objects is a "non-physical interaction".
P3: If a non-physical entity wished to interact with a physical entity, there would have to be an intermediary between the two realms that was neither physical nor non-physical (since a physical intermediary wouldn't be any help since one of the entities is already physical, and the same reasoning applies to a non-physical intermediary).
C: Therefore, a non-physical entity cannot interact with a physical one.
As it is, I omitted P4, which is that there can be no entity that is neither physical nor non-physical, since anything that is not physical is, by default, non-physical. However, this appears to me as much too self-evident for me to add it as a proposition without insulting someone's intelligence . (SNoP)[/color]

So like what??, light (non physical) CANNOT interact with me?? Huh?? What? (physical)

Aside from that (Don't care what Dennett says!) find me a "non physical entity" to prove your point please

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So like what??, light (non physical) CANNOT interact with me?? Huh?? What? (physical)

Mr. Parsons, light is physical, it's just not material.

Aside from that (Don't care what Dennett says!) find me a "non physical entity" to prove your point please

I can't find you a non-physical entity. In order to "find" such a thing, I'd have to be able to either see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or feel it. Since all of these are interactions, and my deduction on the previous post shows that we could not interact, I can never prove this to you empirically, merely logically.

 

[Royce]

Mentat, There is no proof of your P3 above and plenty of evidence that the opposite is true; therefore, his/your conclusion is in error. As before thought, emotions, mind, consciousness are all nonphysical subjective things yet they all interact with our phgysical bodies everyday every second or we would not be living human beings. Via our bodies we interact with physical reality. This is so obvious to me that I can not understand your unwilliness to accept this as true.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Mentat, There is no proof of your P3 above and plenty of evidence that the opposite is true; therefore, his/your conclusion is in error.

P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms. How else do you propose interaction take place? This intermediary couldn't be physical because a physical entity wishing to interact with a non-physical one would be no better-off in this endeavor for having a physical extension...and the same reasoning applies to non-physical entities trying to interact with physical ones.

Where is the flaw?

As before thought, emotions, mind, consciousness are all nonphysical subjective things yet they all interact with our phgysical bodies everyday every second or we would not be living human beings.

First off, you have not proven that any of those things are non-physical, and Dennett (along with Edelman, Calving, LeDoux, and many others working in the field of consciousness and the self) has proposed a reasonable theory that allows all of the them to be completely material functions. Don't state things as definite truths, Royce, you were the one that told me that.

Secondly, why wouldn't we be living human beings if we weren't interacting with some non-physical entities?

Via our bodies we interact with physical reality. This is so obvious to me that I can not understand your unwilliness to accept this as true.

Much as I cannot understand your unwillingness to question it. Especially in light of my having proposed a deductively valid argument against it.

 

[Royce]

"P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms." This is what I disagree with, that an intermediary is necessary for the physical and nonphysical to interact. This has been shown in quantum mechanics. Consciousness collapses the wave function.
If pure thought or consciousness is material then all is materialism and materialism loses its meaning. Materialism becomes universe or reality. If it can be shown that the spirit and/or soul is emergent then we can tie it all together in the philosophy of everything.
To me these ideas are merely constructs to support the materialistic view of reality. They have no validity of their own and ignore far to much that is known to be real.

 

[Mumeishi]

but your starting to get me confused as to when your joking and when your serious .

Yes, that's the art. Sorry, mate.

 

[Mumeishi]

"P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms." This is what I disagree with, that an intermediary is necessary for the physical and nonphysical to interact. This has been shown in quantum mechanics. Consciousness collapses the wave function.

No it doesn't.

There is a lot of misunderstanding of quantum physics. The original version of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM suggested that consciousness collapses the wave function. Not only are there a number of equally valid interpretations, which avoid the paradoxes (eg Schrodingers cat) and begged questions of that interpretation, but the CI itself has been modified so that the the collapse occurs when the 'particle' (not really a particle at all, but a really small wave) interacts with other 'particles', ie. when it hits a detector screen. A superposition of states would thus have to be kept in isolation in the same way as a pair of entangled particles.

Modern quantum physicics simply doesn't use the conciousness idea.

But especially after the publication of 'the Tao of the New Physics' and other silliness that followed, a lot of misty-eyed new age types took on board this idea as they felt it validated their belief that there is no objective reality and everything is illusion/ mind and yes, fairies are real if only you believe in them.

These 'types' (if I may generalise and stereotype) don't keep up with new ideas and most of them probably wouldn't take any notice of new ideas that invalidated their belief system anyway, so the idea has stuck. I suppose it has become a scientific myth.

 

[Royce]

I beg to differ, Mumeishi. According to what I am reading it hasn't been decided yet and there is evidence that consciousness does indeed collapse a wave. We have gone around and around on this subject in previous threads and I'm not going to go into it again. It seems to depend on whose book you read. If your interested look it up in the archives.

 

[Mumeishi]

Of course the true interpretation of QM is undecided - that's what I said. And thus its unsafe to conclude anything magical about consciousness from it. I don't really care what the archives say - I would use a well-researched, up-to-date book to settle that one, not the consensus of Physics Forum posters.

What evidence?

 

[Royce]

No, we can't come to any conclusions; but it opens an interesting door to the possiblity that consciousness does interact directly with the physical and is more than just an emergent property of the brain.

 

[Mumeishi]

What evidence?

 

[Royce]

Look at the thread "Clarification of QM" in the philosophy archives. Flipton gave some links to some current experiments on this subject.

 

[Mumeishi]

Thanks. I will.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
"P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms." This is what I disagree with, that an intermediary is necessary for the physical and nonphysical to interact. This has been shown in quantum mechanics. Consciousness collapses the wave function.

And yet there's no point in mentioning a spiritual dimension, if in fact there are no spirits that actually dwell there. This is why I suggest there are two domains, the spiritual domain (where actual spirits dwell), and the material domain, which is the "temporal physical plane" we live in now. Whereas between the two there must exist some sort of energy barrier or membrane, by which the design/intent/motive (and hence spirit) passes through, to articulate the material ...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Mr. Parsons, light is physical, it's just not material.
Usually physical means tangible, "light" (EMR) is not tangible, even though you can feel its resultant interaction with you
[/color]
I can't find you a non-physical entity. Humm you ego doesn't count? HUH?? [/color] In order to "find" such a thing, I'd have to be able to either see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or feel it. Since all of these are interactions, and my deduction on the previous post shows that we could not interact, I can never prove this to you empirically, merely logically.

If what you tell, after[ b], is true, then your original premise is flawed, inasmuch as it is based upon assumtion(s) of non realities!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP)[/color] P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms. How else do you propose interaction take place? This intermediary couldn't be physical because a physical entity wishing to interact with a non-physical one would be no better-off in this endeavor for having a physical extension...and the same reasoning applies to non-physical entities trying to interact with physical ones. Where is the flaw? (SNoP)[/color]

The intermediary medium could very easily be the medium of energy that floods the universe, it is called EMR...a spectral (non-physical) entity could communicate to you (a Physical entity) through the medium of the energy that permeates all space surrounding matter.

 

[Mumeishi]

I can't find any of these articles - can you point me to them please?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
The intermediary medium could very easily be the medium of energy that floods the universe, it is called EMR...a spectral (non-physical) entity could communicate to you (a Physical entity) through the medium of the energy that permeates all space surrounding matter.

Not if all space surrounding matter is physical (which Relativity dictates that it is). If all of space is physical, then you are using a physical medium, and I already exposed the folly of this approach in previous posts.

btw, it doesn't help at all for the space to be non-physical either, since it would then fall into the folly of non-physical mediums, also pointed out in previous posts.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Usually physical means tangible, "light" (EMR) is not tangible, even though you can feel its resultant interaction with you

Not really relevant, since light is composed of wavicles, and is thus physical. However, a concise definition of "physical" is really unnecessary for this particular logical deduction.

Humm you ego doesn't count? HUH??

My what?

If what you tell, after[ b], is true, then your original premise is flawed, inasmuch as it is based upon assumtion(s) of non realities!

First off, the fact that I can't find one says nothing about their existence, merely about their ability to interact with a physical being such as myself (I can't find you a black hole either, can I?).

Secondly, there needn't actually be non-physical entities for their to be deduction as to what their limitations would be if they existed.

Finally, usual philosophers of the mind have postulated that the mind is a non-physical entity. This is what caused Dennett to explain that a non-physical entity could not interact with a physical one, since this precludes the old ideas from being true, and necessitates a more Materialistic approach.

 

[Wolf]

What is what?

Quick question since you seem to know so "much" what is physical and what in the "nonphysical.?What decides what is what? Are you phyusical or non physical? thease are all words we use to describe things we are not even sure of.What if are defination of "physical" was wrong? are humans physical or non physical? in "reality" we apear to be "physical but has this whole thing started what is reality?we cannot determine what physical and non physical or if they can interact or not before we even know the thing they exist is.well WHAT IS REALITY?answer that fully then we can decided if physical or non physical can interact.

 

[Mumeishi]

Proposed non-physical entities are generally classed as metaphysics. The modern physical description of reality doesn't seem to need such entities for its explanations to work. If there are such entities they are undetectable and thus, for all human purposes, nonexistent - they have no effect on our reality.

It seems to me though that the (very successful) reductionist strategy of studying things at a very small scale is missing or at least de-emphasising the way that things are put together.

The aspects of reality that were once though of as non-physical - thought, consciousness, perhaps culture - are organisational or informational properties of physical systems. Such systems, although they use physical media could in principle use a virtual medium inside a computer (although that ultimately would have to use a physical medium). In theory, at least, the human mind could be uploaded to a computer of the right sort. This might be the source of Descartes sense of not being identical to his body.

Perhaps, the non-physical that you seek is not identical to the physical, to individual electrons and atoms, but neither is it non-physical - it is a property of the physical - an organisational order that could be r4eplicated or propagated into any appropriate physical medium.

This, perhaps, was the kernel of truth in my previous 'jokes' about TCP/IP and ethernet connectivity between physical and nonphysical.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Not if all space surrounding matter is physical (which Relativity dictates that it is). If all of space is physical, then you are using a physical medium, and I already exposed the folly of this approach in previous posts.
btw, it doesn't help at all for the space to be non-physical either, since it would then fall into the folly of non-physical mediums, also pointed out in previous posts.

And by this (lovely) statement, your premise becomes the Folly...do you realize that?

BTW it isn't either "physical" (Not tactile) or "non-physical", (clearly something is there) it is energetic/EMR.

 

[Wolf]

I repeat

You do not even know wht reality is so how can you say that " If there are such entities they are undetectable and thus, for all human purposes, nonexistent - they have no effect on our reality." if you do not even know what reality is? you cannot talk about what physical or non physical beings can do to reality unless you know what reality is .answer what reality exacly is then we can continue the discusion of what physical and non physical beings can do to reality

 

[Mumeishi]

To define whether something is physical or non-physical, I need to know what those terms mean. I don't need to know what the ultimate nature of reality is.

To determine whether a card you are looking at is a diamond or a spade, you need to know what those terms mean and how to differentiate between them. Or do you think that you also need to know the 'ultimate nature of reality' to answer that question too?

 

[Wolf]

Technically yes

you make a good point with the card bit...one problem before you can speak of the type of card you first must know what a card is..and the game you are playing in this case the game and what a card is reality and spade and diamond are physical and non physical what would be the point of knowing what a diamond or spade is if you do not even know what a card is?in this case what would be the point of knowing what physical and nonphysical beings can do if we do not even know what reality is?

 

[Hegira]

Common saying:
Its better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it!

This goes for everyone, including myself... So I've come to be the next fool!

Wolf, none of us could ever give you the absolute correct response to your original question of "What is reality". Reality simply is whatever you make it out to be and it is forever changing. When you were younger and thought of things in such a way that gave reality a certain kind of sense, much of the world seemed magical in many ways. Now, you've evidently traveled a far way in a short time through your extensive training and honing of your personal chi. I'd say that a lot of the things that you experience as an individual don't exactly "compute" with your previous notions of reality. The fact is that you are coming into a time within your life where you are "breaking" the "laws" that constructed your early life. This leaves you with a strong confused feeling and troubles your ego, because most of the world does not understand how to step their minds outside of their own built-up realities.

We all search for clarity on what makes sense to us as individuals, yet where we are having so much trouble is that this has been going on since the beginning (whatever that may be). Ever since we (humans) began asking "WHY", we have sought answers and have come to conclusions or acceptance from somewhere within ourselves. Right now, we seem to be traveling in so many directions that it has become difficult for us to get back on the same sheet of music and re-analyze/rethink the basic building blocks from a more nuetral perspective.

What is Reality!? I have no clue! Just ideas, thoughts, experience, fading memories, hopes, etc... And none of them seem to matter to anyone else but myself! I have to find peace with that. And so do you! We may be fighting a similar battle, but overall... You're on your own within your personal reality!

I hope you make it to be a rather nice place.


--------------------------------
I try to think of everything, only to find that I never KNOW anything!