Quantum reality and Idealism

[Iacchus]

Certainly, with the correct answers about our universe, we'll live a lot longer and increase the quality of that life. We can go back to just saying "goddidit" and return to the dark ages if you like though.

Or, we can see that the pendulum has begun to swing in the opposite direction and acknowledge both. That would be more complete wouldn't it?

If its just something you made up (or something someone else made up a long time ago) then there is no indication of truth. Its just a dead end, why not concern yourself with truth instead of lie. Oh yea, its because the lie feels better.

And yet why does it make more sense to say that the truth is carried over or, follows through? How can something exist -- we, our psyche -- and its acceptance of truth -- and then not exist. Seems like an awful waste to me!

How do you know that our being here isn't very much like going to school?

 

[RussDill]

Hit an object with a hammer until time freezes over, and it will not feel 'pain' until and unless the object itself creates that abstract experience, upon awareness.
Freeze an object and it will not feel 'cold' until the object itself creates that abstract experience for itself.

Get the picture? It's so bloomin' obvious that an entity creates its own abstract experiences of sensation that you're just exposing the limitations of your intelligence when you respond to me the way you do.

Put organic life in an enivonment where there is deadly heat and deadly cold. Introduce just a bit of cosmic radiation for mutation. Eventually, that life will gain mutations that will teach it heat and cold. I know you disagree with evolution, but, you are going to have to disprove it, otherwise, you are just assuming.

 

[lifegazer]

You have to be very careful what you post around here, chum...Lifegazer will read the part that says "the electron begin to bouncing like crazy when the space decreases, it behaves precisely as it suffer from claustrophobia" and next thing you know he starts a new thread. The title will be something like "Quantum Physics Says Electrons Are Sentient"

No. Quantum physics says electrons are of a sentient. They are effects seen within awareness.

 

[RussDill]

No. Quantum physics says electrons are of a sentient. They are effects seen within awareness.

???? Where does quantum physics say this, thats what YOU say.

 

[lifegazer]

Put organic life in an enivonment where there is deadly heat and deadly cold. Introduce just a bit of cosmic radiation for mutation. Eventually, that life will gain mutations that will teach it heat and cold. I know you disagree with evolution, but, you are going to have to disprove it, otherwise, you are just assuming.

Disagree with evolution? Not necessarily... depends what you say about it.

An abstract experience such as 'hot' or 'cold' serves a purpose for the entity since it gives that entity an incentive to respond to its perceived environment. So, the first thing that we see is that abstract sensations are self-purposeful.

Now, as I said previously, the supposed external environment can do whatever it wants to the entity, but it cannot force an entity to have abstract sensations. The entity itself is the cause of its own sensations. That entity must clearly choose to create a particular sensation, even as a response to supposed external events; because it is certain that the events themselves have had no bearing upon the creation of the sensation(s).

An entity has a sensation as a response to supposed external events. But those events do not create the sensation... the entity does, via choice, for self-purposes.
The key words here are:
Create.
Choice/will.
Self-purpose.
The entity itself is the primal-cause of its own sensations.

Now you simply say that "evolution did it". Nice phrase Russ. But what does that mean? Sounds like a mantra that was drummed into you as a kid.
You say that mutations teach the entity heat & cold. Well this is nonsense Russ, because it's impossible to inform an entity about abstract experience. The entity can only "learn" hot & cold by having the experience of them. And the entity can only have an abstract/intangible experience if that entity is abstract/intangible itself = a Mind.

 

[Iacchus]

What do you have, the fischer price my first dictionary?

Websters New Collegiate Dictionary. However, it is about 20 years old.

You might want to read this note from websters:

Science is applied or pure. Applied science is a knowledge of facts, events, or phenomena, as explained, accounted for, or produced, by means of powers, causes, or laws. Pure science is the knowledge of these powers, causes, or laws, considered apart, or as pure from all applications. Both these terms have a similar and special signification when applied to the science of quantity; as, the applied and pure mathematics. Exact science is knowledge so systematized that prediction and verification, by measurement, experiment, observation, etc., are possible. The mathematical and physical sciences are called the exact sciences.

This looks more like an extract from an encyclopedia. By the way, does it have a first and second definition, and what does it say about them?

Perhaps you would care to look up "science" on Merriam Webster Online?

Well respected in which field? Certainly not by physcologists.

However, he does have quite a following, in whatever field you wish to call it.

Did I say you couldn't share? I just said that they you can't say you've proved something just because you had a religious experience

Well there are other people who have similar experiences. These, I have no problems trying to communicate with.

 

[Iacchus]

Why is it cold and lifeless to say that there is no evidence for a spirit? You already admitted that you are just believing a lie because it feels good.

Spirit is like the energy or fire, which ignites things and brings them to life. Spirit is the essence of things.

 

[RussDill]

Disagree with evolution? Not necessarily... depends what you say about it.

I say that through evolution, we have the neural structure we have today (and same with all other forms of life).

An abstract experience such as 'hot' or 'cold' serves a purpose for the entity since it gives that entity an incentive to respond to its perceived environment. So, the first thing that we see is that abstract sensations are self-purposeful.

Sensations that entities have may often be self-purposeful, but more often, they are species survival purposeful. The desire to mate has nothing to do with self purpose. The desire to help others within the species has nothing to do with self purpose, etc, I can go on and on. Its about the species, its about evolution, not self.

Now, as I said previously, the supposed external environment can do whatever it wants to the entity,

How can the external environment "want" anything?

but it cannot force an entity to have abstract sensations.

Being able to force an entity to have something implies a want. So you're right, the external environment cannot force an entity to have abstract sensations. The process occurs through mutation, and mutations ether help a life form survive, or hinder it from surviving (much more often hinder than help). The external environment (including other life forms) provide this natural selection.

The entity itself is the cause of its own sensations. That entity must clearly choose to create a particular sensation, even as a response to supposed external events; because it is certain that the events themselves have had no bearing upon the creation of the sensation(s).

If you can explain the process by which that happens, fine. Maybe I can choose to start having a new sensation, that'd be fun. Otherwise, its meaningless babble. I can certainly provide the process by which it happens in evolution, and the entity certainly does not choose to have a particular sensation, the mutation has occured even before the entitiy was born.

An entity has a sensation as a response to supposed external events. But those events do not create the sensation... the entity does, via choice, for self-purposes.

I already explained how this can happen though natural selection, and how many sensations are not for self-purpose.

The key words here are:
Create.

Or it could just be mutation.

Choice/will.

What about natural selection?

Self-purpose.

What about sensations that provide for the survival of the species, not the self.

The entity itself is the primal-cause of its own sensations.

Your deduction does not lie on a firm foundation, therefore, its irrelavant.

Now you simply say that "evolution did it". Nice phrase Russ. But what does that mean? Sounds like a mantra that was drummed into you as a kid.

It does at first sound similar to "god did it". However, with evolution, you don't simply have to stop at "evolution did it" as you do with "god did it". You can go further and examine the exact processes, you don't have to settile for "evolution did it".

You say that mutations teach the entity heat & cold. Well this is nonsense Russ, because it's impossible to inform an entity about abstract experience. The entity can only "learn" hot & cold by having the experience of them.

The entity is not informed or taught about the experience, it was born with it, just as you are.

And the entity can only have an abstract/intangible experience if that entity is abstract/intangible itself = a Mind.

More useless assumptions on your part.

 

[RussDill]

Websters New Collegiate Dictionary. However, it is about 20 years old.

This looks more like an extract from an encyclopedia. By the way, does it have a first and second definition, and what does it say about them?

Perhaps you would care to look up "science" on Merriam Webster Online?

I'm looking at Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, not an encyclopedia. It has 5 definitions, along with some notes of clarification after them.

However, he does have quite a following, in whatever field you wish to call it.

Now are we going to start saying someone has credibility if they have a following?

Well there are other people who have similar experiences. These, I have no problems trying to communicate with.

I have no problem communicating with you either. But you still have no proof. You aren't going to prove anything to most religious people either.

Edited to clean up formatting

 

[RussDill]

Spirit is like the energy or fire, which ignites things and brings them to life. Spirit is the essence of things.

This is your assumption, nothing more.

 

[Zero]

Spirit is like the energy or fire, which ignites things and brings them to life. Spirit is the essence of things.

Another misuse of metaphor...

 

[Dancing David]

To whom? Unless you studied it how would you know? This is what I mean by taking something blindly or, upon faith.


I understand your point and can not refute it. But I will say that it is my personal experience that what is commonly discussed and published as science, not all by any means, is much more reliable and subject to verification than the claptrap touted as truth in most churches.
I have found that those of a religous mind are ofetn out to dupe people and abuse thier authority. And while those in the scientific establishment can and do abuse thier authority, thier ability to dupe people is more limited by the process.
I can never directly experiment with nuclear fusion but i have more reason to believe in it than I do the resurection of Jesus.



Do you realize that faith is nothing more than making, and hence living by an assumption? And when's the last time you've made an assumption about something?


As my children say, "no duh". But your are assuming that most scientists are out to delude people, it does happen but the process is somewhat self correcting. this is not true for religous establishments.
(You don't have to talk down to me, I may actualy be as knowledgeble as you!)


Somebody has to at least "guess" what it means, right?

Meaning is a human value, it is not appropriate for science, but a great topic for philosphy and spirituality!
There is no meaning in science, never mistake the theory for the actuality.


Well we might get to that, but first we need to understand the importance of having the correct mindset, otherwise none of what I say will make any sense. And here I would say it was comparable to "tuning in" to a certain wavelength in our minds so to speak, and becoming alert to those internal processes which go on inside.

And I would say that that is part of scientific investigation, mindset is a legitimate framework for investigation and control of variables.

Any good cerimonial magic will have an insulating portion to create the sacred space and leave the sacred space. the danger comes when people live in the sacred space and begin to confuse the mindset for reality.

 

[Dancing David]

No, all this suggests is that it has a natural outcropping as well.


Or that there is nothing supernatural or transcedant. I think photons are cool, so I don't need ghosts, myself/


And yet without any of this what would we be? So it doesn't make sense that we shouldn't examine it.

Free from the illusion that there realy are gods, free from the suffering that self exists and free from the contraints of believing in a mind.

 

[Dancing David]

Perhaps you don't know what the scientific process is. Carl Jung never engaged in the scientific process, he is in no way a scientist.

Um, Russ, please don't besmirch your character, Jung was an observational scientist. And a very rational man, a lot has been impuned to his work that is inaccurate. Most of Jung's work is very clear and useful.

 

[RussDill]

Um, Russ, please don't besmirch your character, Jung was an observational scientist. And a very rational man, a lot has been impuned to his work that is inaccurate. Most of Jung's work is very clear and useful.

Nothing of what I read indicated any usefullness. He may have been a good philosopher, which I guess you could say is an observational scientist.

 

[Dancing David]

Not really - if you mean psychology that is. Discredited metatheoretician. If a therapist quotes Jung at you then walk, do not run, to the nearest exit.

I happen to disagree, I don't know about Jungian therapy (being of a behaviorist bent myself), but Jung was not stupid. many have misatributed his work.

 

[Dancing David]

Nothing of what I read indicated any usefullness. He may have been a good philosopher, which I guess you could say is an observational scientist.

Like Freud , he worked with individuals on a daily basis in therapy. Much of his work was before the advent of psychotropic medications. I don't like what Claude Levi-Strauss has to say about anthroplogy but that doesn't mean that they can't have some insight into human nature.

I never met Jung, so maybe he didn't feel that he was speaking in metaphors about the human experience.

He had some stuff to say about the goals of adult hood and it's transitions that i thought was useful

I can't say that he 'colective unconsious" exists but it is a label like the 'mind' that has some use.

 

[Iacchus]

But your are assuming that most scientists are out to delude people, it does happen but the process is somewhat self correcting.

No, the first delusion begins with yourself.

 

[Iacchus]

Um, Russ, please don't besmirch your character, Jung was an observational scientist. And a very rational man, a lot has been impuned to his work that is inaccurate. Most of Jung's work is very clear and useful.

Case dismissed!

 

[Iacchus]

Another misuse of metaphor...

Only because you don't think "spirit" exists. That's your problem not mine.