Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617
Results 161 to 166 of 166

Thread: Pantheism and panpsychism

  1. Top | #161
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,447
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,000
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by veclock View Post
    Well, people who argues for the many worlds interpretation are also physicists.
    But interesting non the less.
    If the experts don't agree what can we say?

    All you can do is hold these ideas about multiple worlds in reserve and wait for actual evidence.

  2. Top | #162
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    71
    Archived
    384
    Total Posts
    455
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by veclock View Post
    Well, people who argues for the many worlds interpretation are also physicists.
    But interesting non the less.
    If the experts don't agree what can we say?

    All you can do is hold these ideas about multiple worlds in reserve and wait for actual evidence.
    That is exactly why I said "if the many worlds interpretation is right, then[...]".
    All I can do? We're in the philosophy forum. Anyone is allowed to have a philosophical discussion as a fun activity in the wait for actual evidence.
    I'm not saying this will lead so any progress but it can at least lead to one filtering out better or worse theories and getting to know them better.
    You're free to be totally passive about it, but then I don't understand why you ever wrote anything in this thread. Because it's been a philosophical discussion all along.

    We're not here to make progress in the field (did anyone really think that?), we're here to make progress in our own thinking and orientation around it, until actual evidence is gathered.
    It's a way of celebrating that we have brains that we can use. It's a fun activity.
    It's like, when I'm holding these internet conversations I notice how my ability to formulate myself in everyday life and use critical thinking improves a lot.
    I think this attitude of "until scientists gather evidence everyone should just shut up and be passive" is sooo boring.
    Philosophy is allowing oneself to be playful with logic and critical thinking, and it's a way of socializing with other humans.
    Don't you think that conversations like this, especially among young people, can inspire them to become actual scientists to be able to explore it for real?
    These conversation killing attitudes only does harm in my opinion.

  3. Top | #163
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,447
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,000
    Rep Power
    81
    I don't know how to deal with questions involving multiple worlds.

    I would not understand the behavior of anything moving from one world to another.

    I believe consciousness is something that evolved to deal with problems of survival.

    I reason that the only way a consciousness could help with survival is if that consciousness has free will.

    Like cells used EM energy and evolved to react to it and then the brain evolved to turn those reactions into experiences I think evolving cells just as blindly evolved to make use of some effect to create experience.

    Experience is always two things.

    It is first the thing that experiences. The thing that has the experience.

    The second is the thing experienced. The fall tree with red and orange and yellow leaves.

    When you have both these things you have experience.

    If they are not both present you do not.

  4. Top | #164
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,447
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,000
    Rep Power
    81
    These conversation killing attitudes only does harm in my opinion.
    Conversation for the sake of conversation is fine.

    It is what makes the world go round.

    It is what makes life worth living.

    But it is not philosophy.

    Philosophy is a disciplined mind that is skeptical and has criteria to accept ideas.

    If we can't really comprehend something, like other worlds besides this world, then we can't really talk about them.

    We can invent other worlds. We have imagination.

    But actually talking constructively about other worlds we have no comprehension of?

    I am skeptical.

  5. Top | #165
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,415
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,628
    Rep Power
    64
    The thing guys, is consciousness and proto-consciousness are probably the same thing with regard to the human condition. Consciousness helps not at all with regard to natural law and t =0. That is so because the best humans can do is a few seconds after something happens that they can sense. That is after something that takes place as the result of other activity many billions of trillions of time a second prior to that which one senses. So at the quantum level and the man responsive interval man is offered only data from the past.

    However, humans operate largely at a human level of behavior and consciousness that is common to most all humans. So with respect to humans much of what humans do are influenced and influence what humans endure. To the extent that that impacts survival it is important to humans. To the extent that to which humans are merely responding after what has taken place man has essentially no determinative skin in the game.

    So it is reasonable that man has evolved concentrating on play the survival game among men behavior and context. Consciousness, awareness self, intent, motives are all wrapped up in such changes. However that consciousness is only consciousness with respect to man time.

    Consciousness is a random variable in t = 0 time survival calculations.

    Above takes consciousness out of determinative behavior generally, reducing it to some effect in human time behavior. Consequently human experience cannot include inclusion of actual free will nor control overt he state of the world or actual consciousness of the world. What is left is that small arena where time sense is operative among living things.

    No one would ever such behavior free will. We have some success ginning up games with humans which permits us to believe we are in control and do act with intent while actually being helpless in the real world of events IAC natural law after t = 0.

    The t in mans equation is only effect re survival among living beings. Were we the only beings in the world we would have no idea beyond interactions with other men of our impacts on things., and then only in context with that of other men.

  6. Top | #166
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,447
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,000
    Rep Power
    81
    This idea that the brain is making a bunch of probability calculations is an idea totally destroyed by Chomsky in this video.

    This is a room full of computational cognitive scientists and an 80 something year old man telling them they are all totally misguided and are not doing anything constructive.

    They are not stupid people.

    They are misguided and not thinking things through.

    The exchange at 1:09:18 is interesting.


Similar Threads

  1. Pantheism Theosophy Rosicrucians Unitarians
    By steve_bank in forum General Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-10-2018, 10:54 AM
  2. Replies: 62
    Last Post: 10-23-2017, 05:54 PM
  3. I like the idea of Pantheism
    By NobleSavage in forum General Religion
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 10-19-2014, 12:33 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •