Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617
Results 161 to 168 of 168

Thread: Pantheism and panpsychism

  1. Top | #161
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    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
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    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
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    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
    14,573
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,786
    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
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    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.


  7. Top | #167
    Squadron Leader
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,520
    Rep Power
    16
    I just stumbled on this thread, skimmed it, and will give my reactions.

    I strongly agree with veclock's point of view. The questions veclock poses are questions I would pose.

    And, if I were veclock I would find some of the responses frustrating. For example, veclock distinguishes 'awareness' and 'consciousness' in order to clarify and avoid talking past each other. The first response defined 'aware' as veclock defined 'conscious' and went on to deny any difference!

    Quote Originally Posted by veclock View Post
    ... Let's assume the brain creates consciousness. How does it do that? Brain activity. Is it the flow of electrons in the brain, or flow of information? If it's electrons, is consciousness made out of electromagnetism? ...
    Electrons are just waves in the electromagnetic field, right? Then what is brain activity?
    I personally think that if you built a sufficiently complex brain out of Lego blocks or TinkerToys it would be conscious. It's just that electricity and electricity-driven biochemistry are the convenient ways to build complex machines in our universe.

    Roger Penrose's ideas have already been discussed in this thread; he thinks neurons are much more complex than generally imagined due to quantum effects in microtubules. Question: Does he think that this gives a huge boost to the brain's complexity and the resultant complexity leads to consciousness? Or do these "quantum tubules" have some peculiar property unrelated to their complexity which leads to consciousness?

    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by veclock View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    I think consciousness is some unknown quantum effect of matter/energy.
    Quite possible! The argument I'm trying to lay out goes hand in hand with this, since electrons are quantum particles. But let me ask you, do you think this quantum effect gives rise to consciousness only in complex structures like the brain, or even at the quantum level for individual particles?
    It's NOT possible.

    Quantum theory clearly rules out the existence of ANY unknown effects on the applicable scales....
    There are no unknown quantum effects that can influence just a single human (or just a single cellular behaviour in a human brain) without atomising him.

    Whatever consciousness is, it is absolutely and definitely a result of known physical effects. Either that or quantum field theory is massively and obviously wrong. (It really is not. We really have checked).
    Is this really true? Quantum computers are large objects which already do things undoable in classic physics.

    Closer to home, many scientists believe that the high efficiencies of certain living processes, e.g. photosynthesis, rely on quantum effects.
    Chlorophyll is microscopic, but a fast-growing tree which benefits from that chlorophyll is macroscopic. For the same reason, Penrose might be right: The complexity of brain may benefit from quantum effects inside neurons. Indeed, if we accept that the efficiencies of photosynthesis and olfactory sense, etc. rely on quantum effects, we can at least GUESS at more extreme quantum exploits being likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by veclock View Post

    I've had this idea about a timeless infinite fractal of universes and infinite timelines of every universe. Different timelines comes from the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. When I've been on psychadelics it's become quite obvious that consciousness is what allows us to navigate between timelines with our choices in this infinite fractal of timelines. Even though it felt like a religious experience in many ways I'm of course not gonna hold it as proof of anything. But what is interesting is when a vast majority of people taking "consciousness expanding substances" report similar philosophical realizations.


    One way of answering that question is to assume that consciousness is a fundamental part of physics, maybe all of it, maybe some parts of it. Then the activity would be the same thing as consciousness, nothing extra is needed to be "reading" the activity because it's "reading" the whole universe all the time. But somehow, reading more intensely as complexity increases, like in a brain. However, I understand that this argument falls quite flat since a sleeping brain is quite unconscious and still shows very much complex activity. So is there a solution for that counterargument? Maybe the activity has changed in some fundamental part during sleep that some necessary component is turned off. Maybe the register of time? Maybe consciousness can't work without that? I don't know enough about the brain to go much further here, maybe someone can fill in or correct me here.../

    ... [L]atest I've heard from Brian Greene is that the fabric of space time is stitched together by the threads of quantum entanglement. What if the complex structure of the brain and entanglements going through it creates a very special geometry of entanglements for example...
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    ... Any smaller scale effects are irrelevant at larger scales. If you have a good description of how a carbon atom behaves, it can be understood in terms of the subatomic components and their interactions, but those components cannot give rise to behaviour that defies the description you started with.

    This has been demonstrated to be universally true. And it's a bloody good thing too, or Newton couldn't have done any of his work without first having determined the full details of the Standard Model, including those bits we don't yet have full details for.

    When experimental and observational behaviour matches theoretical behaviour, no new information about smaller scales can change the larger scale results. Only where they disagree can an understanding of the next 'lower' level provide new insights or describe unexpected or novel phenomena.

    This is counterintuitive, but true. I believe it was Wigner who demonstrated it - it was one of that generation on Nobel winning physicists.
    Can you point to such a demonstration? Are those who relate the eifficiency of photosynthesis to quantum 'tunneling' wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    This idea that the brain is making a bunch of probability calculations is an idea totally destroyed by Chomsky in this video.
    I tried to watch this, but Chomsky mumbles and makes pontifical judgements. He dismisses some contemporary ideas as "disproven in 1959."

    This reminded me of the conclusion in the 1960's (by Minsky et al?) that perceptrons were a dead-end in machine learning!

  8. Top | #168
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,835
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    40,388
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    This idea that the brain is making a bunch of probability calculations is an idea totally destroyed by Chomsky in this video.
    I tried to watch this, but Chomsky mumbles and makes pontifical judgements. He dismisses some contemporary ideas as "disproven in 1959."

    This reminded me of the conclusion in the 1960's (by Minsky et al?) that perceptrons were a dead-end in machine learning!
    If you're unfamiliar with the material you may have trouble understanding because even at 84 Chomsky's mind moved very fast and covered a lot of material quickly.

    But when Chomsky says something was already known in 1959 then it was already known.

    The audio is bad in places but the Q&A is the most interesting part of that video.

    Chomsky basically decimates their ideas one by one.

    An incredible display of a genius thinking on his feet.

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
  •