[DonQuichotte (OP)]

It should be obvious to everyone participating in this thread that Don is beyond help. He won't listen to reason, he won't compromise, it is highly unlikely that he ever will. I'm giving up on him, more important things to do besides trying to coax him toward reality.

True; these days I'm posting for the exercise and entertainment - as I said before, whenever it gets boring you can just wait a while, and he'll always come back with some new inanity []

Yeah ,right , just keep on deluding yourself then .
See above .

The only delusion being exercised here is taking Stapp's word on these questions for granted. Look in the mirror Don!

Look who's talking : a paradoxical guy who happens to be believing in 2 mutually exclusive world views : don't you think that that fact does put you in no position to judge what others might or might not believe in ?

[Ethos_]

Look who's talking : a paradoxical guy who happens to be believing in 2 mutually exclusive world views : don't you think that that fact does put you in no position to judge what others might or might not believe in ?

You can believe what ever you like Don and I'll believe what I find evidence for. And Stapp is obviously wrong on several counts. But that's OK, trust in your Guru if you like, I'll stick to the facts.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Stapp's just doing the usual business of working back from an incoherent cultural/philosophic assumption based on special pleading, and struggling to find a way to connect it to physical reality. In this case the assumption is that people are 'morally responsible agents' because they have a special kind of control that only they can exercise - what he calls "the morally pertinent idea of ‘possessing free will’" - that somehow transcends physical causality (special pleading). Naturally, it's not easy to connect what is beyond physical causality to causal physical processes. The best he can do is find a point of unknown causality in QM (the outcome of decoherence) and say the (unspecified) magic happens there.

What puzzles me is why he, and so many others (usually religious apologetics) find it necessary to explain the abstract cultural conveniences of moral responsibility and free will in these terms. If there's anything more to it than having an excuse for (i.e. not feeling guilty about) blame, punishment (and, perhaps retribution), I'd like to hear it.

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?

You don't think , you just assume that you think : it's your materialist world view that shapes your mind that's been doing the 'thinking " for you .
You're not the one doing the thinking here thus : that's just your materialist world view that's doing just that on your behalf , your own materialist world view that shapes your mind and thus thoughts , behaviour , actions, ethics ...
Materialism that can only be mechanical and determinist : so, how can you talk about free will within the framework of materialism then ? absurd .
materialism that was built on the 19th century mechanical determinist approximately valid and fundamentally incorrect classical physics .
Since materialism assumes or rather believes that matter is the only reality out there , then the mind is in the brain , or the mind is just brain activity,and hence the mind has no causal effects on matter brain or body  : 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 ? 
at the other hand , it is an undeniable fact we do experience every single day of our own lives that consciousness does have fundamental causal effects on our brains and bodies at the macroscopic level thus ,why then can't the mind intervene at the quantum level as well ?


See above ..........

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Look who's talking : a paradoxical guy who happens to be believing in 2 mutually exclusive world views : don't you think that that fact does put you in no position to judge what others might or might not believe in ?

You can believe what ever you like Don and I'll believe what I find evidence for. And Stapp is obviously wrong on several counts. But that's OK, trust in your Guru if you like, I'll stick to the facts.

Haha

What facts , paradoxical guy ?
The materialist "facts " or rather the materialist belief assumptions, or the scientific facts  ? : when you will be able to learn how to differentiate between materialism and science , then, and only then, i will be listening to you  .

When you will stop believing in  2 mutually exclusive world views ( The materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view " and what you called your faith ) ,  then and only then , i will be taking you seriously ...

Deal ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

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 .

[dlorde]

When I first started reading this thread, I found Don very interesting and considered him to be quite intelligent. As time has progressed and I began to see this pattern of his, for constant repetition of his spurious sources, I've come to the conclusion that he is not as bright as I once thought. To tell you the truth, I don't think he really understands this questionable theory that he uses as his source. I doubt he's intelligent enough to separate the facts from the fiction and simply takes the assertions of these sources as real science. And he is so committed that even were he to realize the errors, he would just casually ignore them.

I think he's intelligent enough, but he seems to have no idea of rational argument or critical thinking, always starting from an unsustainable assumption or working back from his desired conclusion. He gives me the impression he's used to getting his own way through bluff and bluster rather than reasoned debate, losing his temper or flouncing out if he fails.

Quite amusing though []

[Ethos_]

Folks :

In short :

The objective reality  out there is way beyond our reach , and beyond  that of science as well ,

And beyond Stapp and DonQuichotte as well if we are to accept these preposterous immaterial assertions. In final analysis, nothing can be known, nothing we see is really there, nothing we measure is valid, even the sound we hear is only illusion, so I might as well quit listening to your crab Don because you're not real either nor will you ever be!..........................right?

[Ethos_]

When I first started reading this thread, I found Don very interesting and considered him to be quite intelligent. As time has progressed and I began to see this pattern of his, for constant repetition of his spurious sources, I've come to the conclusion that he is not as bright as I once thought. To tell you the truth, I don't think he really understands this questionable theory that he uses as his source. I doubt he's intelligent enough to separate the facts from the fiction and simply takes the assertions of these sources as real science. And he is so committed that even were he to realize the errors, he would just casually ignore them.

I think he's intelligent enough, but he seems to have no idea of rational argument or critical thinking, always starting from an unsustainable assumption or working back from his desired conclusion. He gives me the impression he's used to getting his own way through bluff and bluster rather than reasoned debate, losing his temper or flouncing out if he fails.

Quite amusing though []

Just a spoiled little BRAT. I wonder if he's even 21 years old yet, still wet behind the ears!

[Ethos_]

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???

[dlorde]

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   .

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.

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 ....

[] 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).

[dlorde]

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???

No comment...

[Ethos_]

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???

No comment...

Yeah, I suppose drawing any parallels between Don and my former acquaintance would be as unscientific as Don declaring the supremacy of his theory of the immaterial nature of reality over our contemporary understanding.

I stand corrected.......But I did say; "just wondering" didn't I.

Not nearly as offensive as calling dlorde a swine or calling me a monkey!!

[dlorde]

.. 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.

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?

[Ethos_]

dlorde :

You're a lousy reader and a lousy scientist

And you're a lousy debater and by no means, any kind of scientist!

[alancalverd]

Not 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.

[dlorde]

Not 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.

How true!

[Ethos_]

I have allowed this discussion to become way too personal, and for that, I apologize to everyone participating in it. For that reason, I will withdraw myself from it. I'm sure Don will applaud this action but I leave him with one piece of sincere advice:

Sir Don;

Please try to examine honestly the issues raised by your fellow contributors like; delorde, Cheryl, and alancalverd. If you're wise and honest, you have a chance to learn something of value. If you continue to insist that it's your way or the high way, the remaining participants here may decide to depart as well leaving you alone with your thoughts and your theory.

Regards to all....................................Ethos

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Folks :

In short :

The objective reality  out there is way beyond our reach , and beyond  that of science as well ,

And beyond Stapp and DonQuichotte as well if we are to accept these preposterous immaterial assertions. In final analysis, nothing can be known, nothing we see is really there, nothing we measure is valid, even the sound we hear is only illusion, so I might as well quit listening to your crab Don because you're not real either nor will you ever be!..........................right?

You obviously did not understand those statements of mine who were corroborated and supported by Stapp, by post-modernists , as well as by the pragmatic science that's not about the truth : try to read that relevant excerpt of Stapp on the subject regarding materialist neuroscientist Gazzaniga's ethical brain then ,instead of making such a fool of yourself through these sort of empty rhetorics of yours .

[yor_on]

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 .

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.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I have allowed this discussion to become way too personal

I am afraid , you haven't done anything different here so far: irrelevant though : i do not see myself reflected  in any way   whatsoever in your personal 'attacks " ,so, don't worry about just that : you might have been  just projecting ,who knows   .
Or as a great poet said : "....And i say that even as the holy and the righteous cannot rise beyond the highest which is in each one of you,
So, the wicked and the weak cannot fall below the lowest which  is  in you also ..."
Your confessions do not belong on a science forum either  ,go to the church for that then .

, and for that, I apologize to everyone participating in it.

No need to .Go see a priest then for that, or a therapist  .I am not one .

For that reason, I will withdraw myself from it. I'm sure Don will applaud this action but I leave him with one piece of sincere advice:

You're leaving this thread , just because you have been too personal ? What kind of "reason " is that then ?
This is not the first time you say you're leaving though : you're starting to sound like me in this regard at least  , i guess .  haha
You are starting to sound  more  like Dostoyevsky in fact who used to enjoy his repetitive confessions,after committing his 'sins " over and over again  : Nietzsche could not but despise that .

Sir Don;

Please try to examine honestly the issues raised by your fellow contributors like; delorde, Cheryl, and alancalverd. If you're wise and honest, you have a chance to learn something of value. If you continue to insist that it's your way or the high way, the remaining participants here may decide to depart as well leaving you alone with your thoughts and your theory.

I have been learning a lot from these and other materialists,you have no idea ,  who have been reflecting the beauty of my dualism ,once again, but i have never noticed or seen the hypothetical beauty of materialism .


In fact , you are the ones who do not want to listen to what some great scientists and philosophers have been saying such as T.Nagel , Sheldrake, Stapp, Chalmers , and the rest whose excerpts i have been extensively quoting all along, by violating copyright issues , just to provide you with that food for the mind  i have been 'stealing " just for you , guys  ,since you all do seem to be so starving  .
You just stick to your own materialist outdated superseded and false beliefs you have been confusing with science .

You , Ethos , do even believe in 2 mutually exclusive world views on top of that , so : you are the one that's of urgent need of that advice of yours .Thanks anyway .

Regards to all....................................Ethos

Likewise .
Take care, paradoxical Ethos : even this nick of yours is paradoxical in relation to your own mutually exclusive beliefs  .
My own nick  has been just a form of irony or sarcasm though .

You are also a very moody person through your paradoxical personality , i guess .

Ironically enough , you, Ethos , of all people here should have been agreeing with me  all along  in relation to materialism, simply because you are "a man of faith " , as you put it once .

But , i have not been religiously motivated in attacking materialism  though  ,as i said many times on the occasion : i just want you, guys , to realise the fact that materialism is no science , even though science has been materialist for so long now : i just would love to see science getting liberated from its own false materialist world view , simply because materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for ...consciousness .

P.S.: I have just started reading " Angels and Demons " ( I do not want to watch the movie before reading the book ) By Dan Brown (Quite a fictitious  ,inspiring ,entertaining and educational based -on- the- Eurocentric -history thriller , via religious symbolism and more  ) , regarding mainly the old-new conflict between christianity and science ; such conflict that explains how when and why science has been materialist and much more , while Islam has not only never been hostile to science , but was also the creator of science ,the latter that originated from the very fertile womb, so to speak, of my own faith thus .

All the best .