0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/01/2014 20:45:58Folks :In short : The objective reality out there is way beyond our reach , and beyond that of science as well , since science is just a human activity , and since the observed objective reality out there gets distorted by the minds of the observers through their a-priori held beliefs or world views that do shape their minds , and hence their thoughts , behaviours , ethics , actions ,views , opinions ....Major proof ,once again ? : the materialist false belief or false world view that's been equated with science for so long now .Objectivity is thus a myth , together with the so-called metaphysically -neutral science .May I jump into this discussion?I don't think it is impossible to define, what may be impossible is to agree on whether we have a shaper of it, or if it's just a 'fluke'. Myself I don't know, sometimes I think of the universe as something shaped to consciousness, possibly by consciousness? therefore I will not argue with people of faith, as long as I can recognize my humanity in their thoughts. There's a big difference to me, between someone having a personally felt faith, and a organization telling you what 'it is'. also I like us all here, we don't need to agree, as long as we allow each other the opportunity to think.
Folks :In short : The objective reality out there is way beyond our reach , and beyond that of science as well , since science is just a human activity , and since the observed objective reality out there gets distorted by the minds of the observers through their a-priori held beliefs or world views that do shape their minds , and hence their thoughts , behaviours , ethics , actions ,views , opinions ....Major proof ,once again ? : the materialist false belief or false world view that's been equated with science for so long now .Objectivity is thus a myth , together with the so-called metaphysically -neutral science .
Still arguing guys lol.To people with faith, there faith is all they need, faith = fact, evidence and truth.anything else anyone might propose is all lies. You may not doubt or question the faith.The fact that Don wants to make this part of science, just shows he does not understandthe scientific method. And he never will.By his posts you can tell he thinks science should change to match his mystical world view.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/01/2014 17:05:14dlorde :You're a lousy reader and a lousy scientist And you're a lousy debater and by no means, any kind of scientist!
dlorde :You're a lousy reader and a lousy scientist
Quote from: Ethos_ on 06/01/2014 21:15:10Reminds me of an Arab Muslim I used to know. His father owned a vast amount of Gulf oil and this son of his thought the world revolved around himself and every thing he touched. Don reminds me a lot of that spoiled brat, makes me wonder what allegiances Don might secretly have ..........just wondering???No comment...
Reminds me of an Arab Muslim I used to know. His father owned a vast amount of Gulf oil and this son of his thought the world revolved around himself and every thing he touched. Don reminds me a lot of that spoiled brat, makes me wonder what allegiances Don might secretly have ..........just wondering???
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/01/2014 20:02:09No, QT is the one that's subjective ( The founders of QT saw it as such ,remember ) : mind -dependent = a matter of interpretation , that's why there are a lots of interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation of QT , the latter depends largely on the a -priori held beliefs or world views of the scientists thinkers in question,as we see that reflected in this very thread through Stapp's and through the materialists ' interpretations of QT such as those of yourselves .Oh dear; no, QM is emphatically not subjective, the 'founders' of QM didn't think so either. Yes, there are a number of interpretations of QM, and which interpretation you subscribe to is (obviously) subjective, but they're just interpretations - ways to visualise what is happening; they make no difference whatsoever to the QM calculations. The maths tells you precisely what to expect if you do any given experiment. Equally obviously, every observer has a subjective view of any event - in relativity, two observers in relative motion will see each other's clocks run slow. This is a real effect, and by understanding the physics behind it, the two observers can agree on a common view of the situation.QuoteThe observed objective reality out there in general , either at the microscopic or macroscopic levels , gets distorted by the mind of the observer through the a-priori held beliefs or world views of the observer which do shape his /her mind and hence his thoughts ,behaviours , ethics , actions ....[] Nobody is denying that reality has a distorted representation in mind of the observer, that's why the scientific method was developed. That has nothing to do with the subjective nature of context-dependent observations or quantum decoherence.If you want a full discussion of the relationship between QM and consciousness, you'll find it here:Is Consciousness Involved in Wave Function Collapse? You'll need to understand the difference between a 'pure' and a 'mixed' state, between 'unitary' and 'non-unitary' processes, and between 'decoherence' and the 'collapse of the wave function'. Be very careful not to jump to conclusions & to be sure you understand exactly what they're saying.Then you can see the difference between saying 'QM is subjective' and the measurement problem (i.e. it takes a conscious observer to perceive a single outcome). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives the background to the measurement problem.You might be interested in a recent paper that shows how standard quantum statistical mechanics is sufficient to explain the unique result of a measurement and provides compatibility with classical mechanics: Solution To Quantum Problem (full article here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157312004085).
No, QT is the one that's subjective ( The founders of QT saw it as such ,remember ) : mind -dependent = a matter of interpretation , that's why there are a lots of interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation of QT , the latter depends largely on the a -priori held beliefs or world views of the scientists thinkers in question,as we see that reflected in this very thread through Stapp's and through the materialists ' interpretations of QT such as those of yourselves .
The observed objective reality out there in general , either at the microscopic or macroscopic levels , gets distorted by the mind of the observer through the a-priori held beliefs or world views of the observer which do shape his /her mind and hence his thoughts ,behaviours , ethics , actions ....
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/01/2014 20:29:58.. where does that free will you were talking about come from then ,within the framework of materialism ?How can free will rise from the classically materialist mechanical determinist conception of the physical reality or of the physical brain then ?Read what I posted (reposted below). If you don't understand what I mean by any of it, just say what part(s) you don't understand and I'll explain. If you could have a stab at answering the question at the end, I'd be interested to hear your answer.Quote from: dlorde on 06/01/2014 19:09:43Personally, I see my free will as the freedom to act as determined by what makes me uniquely 'me' - my state of mind at the time of the decision, which in turn, is determined by the genetic inheritance my parents gave me, and a lifetime of development and growth, interaction with my environment and experiences; what I've been taught, and what I've learnt, and what I've thought about. That's what makes me uniquely 'me'; what else do the advocates of causal transcendence think should be involved?
.. where does that free will you were talking about come from then ,within the framework of materialism ?How can free will rise from the classically materialist mechanical determinist conception of the physical reality or of the physical brain then ?
Personally, I see my free will as the freedom to act as determined by what makes me uniquely 'me' - my state of mind at the time of the decision, which in turn, is determined by the genetic inheritance my parents gave me, and a lifetime of development and growth, interaction with my environment and experiences; what I've been taught, and what I've learnt, and what I've thought about. That's what makes me uniquely 'me'; what else do the advocates of causal transcendence think should be involved?
QuoteNot nearly as offensive as calling dlorde a swine or calling me a monkey!!Why is that offensive? AFAIK neither species gets involved with religion, philosophy, or discussions about a subject they refuse to define, which makes them more intelligent and rational than most humans.
Not nearly as offensive as calling dlorde a swine or calling me a monkey!!
science does not have to refute any ones view.I said you did not understand science. and I was correct.You have not explained how your theory works ie how is consciousness separate from brain.And despite all your cut and pasting of similar views to yours. You have provided no evidence either.
A Gazzaniga’s The Ethical Brain:Michael S. Gazzaniga is a renowned cognitive neuroscientist. He wasEditor-in-Chief of the 1447 page book The Cognitive Neurosciences,which, for the past decade, has been the fattest book in my library,apart from ‘the unabridged’. His recent book The Ethical Brain has aPart III entitled Free Will, Personal Responsibility, and the Law. Thispart addresses, from the perspective of cognitive neuroscience, someof the moral issues that have been dealt with in the present book.The aim of his Part III is to reconcile the materialist idea that brainactivity is determined with the notion of moral responsibility, whichnormally depends upon the idea that we human beings possess freewill.Gazzaniga asserts:Based on the modern understanding of neuroscience and on theassumptions of legal concepts, I believe the following axioms:Brains are automatic, rule-governed, determined devices, whilepeople are personally responsible agents, free to make their owndecisions.One possible interpretation of these words – the quantum-theoreticinterpretation – would be that a person has both a mind (his stream ofconscious thoughts, ideas, and feelings) and a brain (made of neurons,glia, etc), and that his decisions (his conscious moral choices) are free(not determined by any known law), and that, moreover, the rulesthat govern his brain determine the activity of his brain jointly fromthe physically described properties of the brain combined with theseconscious decisions. That interpretation is essentially what orthodox(von Neumann) quantum mechanics – and also common sense intuition– asserts.If this interpretation is what Gazzaniga means, then there is noproblem. But I believe that this is not what Gazzaniga means. Earlieron he said:The brain determines the mind, and the brain is a physicalentity subject to all the rules of the physical world. The physicalworld is determined, so our brains must also be determined.This seems to be suggesting that by ‘determined’ he means determinedsolely by physically described properties, as would be the case if theconcepts of classical physics were applicable. However, what he actuallysaid was that “the brain is a physical entity subject to all the rulesof the physical world”. The rules of the physical world, as specified bycontemporary (orthodox quantum) theory, explain how the brain isgoverned in part by the brain and in part by our conscious choices,which themselves are not governed by any known laws. If this physicsbasedunderstanding of ‘determined’ is what Gazzaniga means thenthere is no difficulty in reconciling the fact that an agent’s brain is‘determined’ with the fact that this agent’s person is ‘free’: the agent’sbrain is determined partly by his brain and partly by his consciousfree choices, and hence the person whose actions this brain controls islikewise jointly controlled by these two factors, neither of which alonesuffices.If this contemporary-physics-based interpretation is what Gazzanigameant, then he could have stopped his book right there: thatinterpretation is in complete accord with common sense, with normalethical theory, and with contemporary physics. Thus the fact that hedid not stop, but went on to write his book, including Part III, suggeststhat he is using not the quantum mechanical meaning of ‘determined’;but rather the meaning that would hold in the classical approximation,which exorcizes all the physical effects of our conscious choices.Indeed, he goes on to say:If our brains are determined, then [. . . ] is the free will we seemto experience just an illusion? And if free will is an illusion,must we revise our concepts of what it means to be personallyresponsible for our actions?I am assuming in this appendix that Gazzaniga is adhering essentiallyto nineteenth century physics, so that ‘determined’ means automatically/mechanically determined by physically described propertiesalone, like a clock, and that he is thus endeavoring to address thequestion: How can one consider a person with an essentially clocklikebody-brain to be morally responsible for his actions? How can weuphold the concept of ethical behavior within the confines of an understandingof nature that reduces each human being to a mechanicalautomaton?Gazzaniga’s answer is built upon a proposed restructuring (redefining)the meanings of both ‘free will’ and ‘moral responsibility’. Followingan idea of David Hume, and more recently of A.J. Ayer, the word‘free’ is effectively defined to mean ‘unconstrained by external bonds’.Thus a clock is ‘free’ if the movements of its hands and cogs are notrestricted by external bonds or forces. However, the ‘free will’ of traditionalethical theory refers to a type of freedom that a mechanicallycontrolled clock would not enjoy, even if it had no external bonds.This latter – morally pertinent – kind of free will is specifically associatedwith consciousness. Thus a physically determined clock thathas no consciousness is not subject to moral evaluation, even if itis not constrained by external bonds, whereas a person possessing aconscious ‘will’ that is physically efficacious, yet not physically determined,is subject to moral evaluation when he is not constrained byexternal bonds. Thus the morally pertinent idea of ‘possessing freewill’ is not the same as ‘unconstrained by external bonds or forces’.The Hume/Ayer move obscures the morally pertinent idea of freedom,which is intimately linked to consciousness, by confounding it with differentidea that does not specifically involve consciousness. This movethrows rational analysis off track by suppressing (on the basis of aninapplicable approximation) the involvement of consciousness in themorally relevant conception of ‘free will’.Ethical and moral values traditionally reside in the ability of a personto make discerning conscious judgments pertaining to moral issues,coupled with the capacity of the person’s conscious effort to willfullyforce his body to act in accordance with the standards he has consciouslyjudged to be higher, in the face of strong natural tendenciesto do otherwise. The whole moral battle is fought in the realm of consciousthoughts, ideas, and feelings. Where there is no consciousnessthere is no moral dimension. Moreover, if consciousness exists but ispermitted by general rules to make no physical difference – that is,if consciousness is constrained by the general laws to be an impotentwitness to mechanically determined process – then the seeming struggleof will becomes a meaningless charade, and the moral dimensionagain disappears.It is the imposition, by virtue of the classical approximation, ofthis law-based kind of impotency that eliminates the moral dimensionwithin that approximation. The morally pertinent free will is eradicatedby the classical approximation even if there are no externalbounds. Calling a system ‘free’ just because it is not constrained byexternal bonds does not suffice to give that system the kind of free willthat undergirds normal ethical ideas.Gazzaniga’s attack on the problem has also a second prong. Heavers that: “Personal responsibility is a public concept.” He says ofthings such as personal responsibility that:Those aspects of our personhood are – oddly – not in our brains.They exist only in the relationships that exist when our automaticbrains interact with other automatic brains. They are inthe ether.This idea that these pertinent things are “in the ether” and exist “onlyin the relationships” is indeed an odd thing for a materialisticallyorientedneuroscientist to say. It seems mystical. Although ideas aboutpersonal responsibility may indeed arise only in social contexts, onewould normally say that the resulting ideas about personal responsibilityexist in the streams of consciousness of the interacting persons,and a materialist would be expected to say that these ideas are ‘in’ orare ‘some part of’ the brains of those socially interacting persons. Yetif the causes of self-controlled behavior are wholly in the brains andbodies of the agents, and these brains and bodies are automaticallydetermined by the physically described body-brain alone, then it ishard to see how these agents, as persons, can have the kind of free willupon which our moral and ethical theories are based. Some sort of oddor weird move is needed to endow a person with morally relevant freewill if his body and brain are mechanically determined.But if some sort of weirdness is needed to rescue the social conceptof personal responsibility, then why not use ‘quantum weirdness’. Thequantum concepts may seem weird to the uninitiated, but they arebased on science, and they resolve the problem of moral responsibilityby endowing our conscious choices with causal influence in the selectionof our physical actions.It is hard to see the advantage of introducing the changes describedby Gazzaniga compared to the option of simply going beyond the inprinciple-inadequate classical approximation. Why do thinkers dedicatedto rationality resist so tenaciously the option of accepting (contemporaryorthodox quantum) physics, which says that our consciouschoices intervene, in a very special and restricted kind of way, in themechanically determined time development of the physically describedaspects of a system – during the process by means of which the consciousagent acquires new knowledge about that system? Because acquiringnew knowledge about a system normally involves a probingem, it is not at all weird that the system being examinedshould be affected by the extraction of knowledge from it, and hencecomes to depend upon how it was probed.The advantages of accepting quantum mechanics in cognitive neuroscience,and ultimately in our lives, are:• It is compatible with basic physical theory, and thus will continue towork in increasingly complex and miniaturized empirical situations.• It specifies how a person’s consciously experienced intentionalchoices are represented in the physically described aspects of thetheory.• It removes the incoherency of a known-to-be-real ontological elementthat contains the empirical data, yet resides in a realm thathas no law-based connection to the flow of physical events.• It provides a foundation for understanding the co-evolution of mindand brain, because each of these two parts contributes to the dynamicsin a way that is linked to the other by laws that are specified,at least in part.• It provides for a free will of the kind needed to undergird ethicaltheory.• It produces a science-based image of oneself, not as a freak-accidentout-cropping – with consciousness riding like a piece of froth onthe ocean – but rather as an active component of a deeply interconnectedworld process that is responsive to value-based humanjudgments.Henry P.Stapp
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/01/2014 20:02:09Quote from: dlorde on 06/01/2014 19:30:13Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/01/2014 18:46:173-It's a matter of interpretation of QT : clearly Von Neumann , Einstein, Bohr , Heseinberg and others + all the founders of QT thought , and rightly so,that QT was / is mind-dependent .Even at the macroscopic level , it is cristal-clear that the observed is mind -dependent ( we all distort the observed objective reality through our conscious a-priori held beliefs : materialists , for example , see life , nature , man and the rest of the universe as being mechanical determined ...dualists ,idealists or otherwise do not ) : we all view reality through our own a-priori held world views that do shape our consciousness and hence our behaviours , thoughts , feelings , emotions, ethics , actions, ....Do you really think 'Von Neumann , Einstein, Bohr , Heseinberg and others' were talking about subjective reality? [)]No, QT is the one that's subjective ( The founders of QT saw it as such ,remember ) : mind -dependent = a matter of interpretation , that's why there are a lots of interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation of QT , the latter depends largely on the a -priori held beliefs or world views of the scientists thinkers in question,as we see that reflected in this very thread through Stapp's and through the materialists ' interpretations of QT such as those of yourselves .The observed objective reality out there in general , either at the microscopic or macroscopic levels , gets distorted by the mind of the observer through the a-priori held beliefs or world views of the observer which do shape his /her mind and hence his thoughts ,behaviours , ethics , actions ....You are confusing two entirely different things. Not even Stapp would suggest that misinformation, as in believing something to be true that isn't - or wishful thinking, simply wanting it to be true, actually changes physical reality. If it's -34 degrees in Canada, there is no superpositioned brain state connected to the macro level reality of my car starting in the morning.
Quote from: dlorde on 06/01/2014 19:30:13Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/01/2014 18:46:173-It's a matter of interpretation of QT : clearly Von Neumann , Einstein, Bohr , Heseinberg and others + all the founders of QT thought , and rightly so,that QT was / is mind-dependent .Even at the macroscopic level , it is cristal-clear that the observed is mind -dependent ( we all distort the observed objective reality through our conscious a-priori held beliefs : materialists , for example , see life , nature , man and the rest of the universe as being mechanical determined ...dualists ,idealists or otherwise do not ) : we all view reality through our own a-priori held world views that do shape our consciousness and hence our behaviours , thoughts , feelings , emotions, ethics , actions, ....Do you really think 'Von Neumann , Einstein, Bohr , Heseinberg and others' were talking about subjective reality? [)]No, QT is the one that's subjective ( The founders of QT saw it as such ,remember ) : mind -dependent = a matter of interpretation , that's why there are a lots of interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation of QT , the latter depends largely on the a -priori held beliefs or world views of the scientists thinkers in question,as we see that reflected in this very thread through Stapp's and through the materialists ' interpretations of QT such as those of yourselves .The observed objective reality out there in general , either at the microscopic or macroscopic levels , gets distorted by the mind of the observer through the a-priori held beliefs or world views of the observer which do shape his /her mind and hence his thoughts ,behaviours , ethics , actions ....
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/01/2014 18:46:173-It's a matter of interpretation of QT : clearly Von Neumann , Einstein, Bohr , Heseinberg and others + all the founders of QT thought , and rightly so,that QT was / is mind-dependent .Even at the macroscopic level , it is cristal-clear that the observed is mind -dependent ( we all distort the observed objective reality through our conscious a-priori held beliefs : materialists , for example , see life , nature , man and the rest of the universe as being mechanical determined ...dualists ,idealists or otherwise do not ) : we all view reality through our own a-priori held world views that do shape our consciousness and hence our behaviours , thoughts , feelings , emotions, ethics , actions, ....Do you really think 'Von Neumann , Einstein, Bohr , Heseinberg and others' were talking about subjective reality? [)]
3-It's a matter of interpretation of QT : clearly Von Neumann , Einstein, Bohr , Heseinberg and others + all the founders of QT thought , and rightly so,that QT was / is mind-dependent .Even at the macroscopic level , it is cristal-clear that the observed is mind -dependent ( we all distort the observed objective reality through our conscious a-priori held beliefs : materialists , for example , see life , nature , man and the rest of the universe as being mechanical determined ...dualists ,idealists or otherwise do not ) : we all view reality through our own a-priori held world views that do shape our consciousness and hence our behaviours , thoughts , feelings , emotions, ethics , actions, ....
No, QT is the one that's subjective ( The founders of QT saw it as such ,remember ) : mind -dependent = a matter of interpretation , that's why there are a lots of interpretations of the Copenhagen interpretation of QT , the latter depends largely on the a -priori held beliefs or world views of the scientists thinkers in question,as we see that reflected in this very thread through Stapp's and through the materialists ' interpretations of QT such as those of yourselves .The observed objective reality out there in general , either at the microscopic or macroscopic levels , gets distorted by the mind of the observer through the a-priori held beliefs or world views of the observer which do shape his /her mind and hence his thoughts ,behaviours , ethics , actions ....
Don't disappear again , you do know that i cannot make you re-appear on demand out of the blue , my magical lamp is ...broken ..........you know ...
You should in fact try to refute Stapp's dualist world view that's been supported by the dualist nature of QT and thus by science
Consciousness does exist