U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-14-2015, 09:13 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,020,147 times
Reputation: 1368

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophronius View Post
A unified consciousness isn't even the problem and has nothing exactly directly to do with any ontology's with regards to the quantum knowledge,

It has to do with determinism and non deterministic issues , whether anybodies philosophy likes it or not because why, because that's the problem. So without explaining the double slit and the problem concerning determinism its saying nothing, ( at very least suggest an experiment) . Big ideas going into all kinds of philosophies are nice but that's about it unless there are exact connecting suggestions for experiment which can add to understanding .
that's right sop. many people are against deterministic views. That is one of a handful base axioms they have and every other belief they have is based off of that. Instead, they need to be looking at the data and let that data do the leading to ones beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-14-2015, 10:35 AM
 
39,247 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5101
If I get you rightly, this touches on the materialist default. It and determinism seems to select materialism and determinist causality as the preferred theory to use in relation to explaining data.

As I see it, it is not denied that there cannot be other explanations for observed data than it is all particles and physics (and no matter what goes on at Quantum level, it makes no difference to the reliability of physics).

That of course would tend to elicit the requirement that materialism explain everything down to the last nano -particle. Materialism obviously cannot do that, and the claim has been made that this means that materialism has failed (which seems wrong to me) but has been proven wrong, which surely is wrong, because 'don't know' means 'don't know'. It does not mean 'Well, I must be right, if you can't prove everything.').

It is annoying then for those with a case for the mysterious, hidden and speculative, that materialism is still claimed as the preferred default, when there is so much that it can't explain.

Quite simply that overlooks that everything we can explain conforms to materialist physics. Except Quantum. And NED's. And a lot of other stuff. But there it is either imperfectly understood or not understood at all, in which case there is no real evidence to support the Other interpretation, which is based on nothing but unvalidated speculation.

Though sometimes attempts are made to prove it by cheating with claims of divine revelation or messages from Beyond, which also are not validated, so it becomes a huge circular argument, which materialism is not.

The Determinist case is somewhat the same. We have choices, but there is compelling evidence one way or the other as to whether it really is a random coin -flip of will or whether there are factors involved in the choice which (if only we knew them all, and had the suitably subtle software) in principle, we could predict the choice. That we can point to some of the factors that influence our choice might suggest that determinism has the best case and the other side in fact has nothing but the suggestion that there is 'something else'.

Pointing to unexplaineds is not following the evidence but leading it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 01:51 PM
 
343 posts, read 246,620 times
Reputation: 32
The coin flip involves a number of things which if all recorded, there could not be one which express' a coin flip properly, it would always be setting up, about to release, flipped coin, results of flipped coin, but never express a coin flip without connecting for a flow, all the parts in time for a coin flip. Yet, man could say every single exact moment, in the moment or parts of a coin flip are 100% determined for themselves in the moment save for a moment available in time.( boundaries, law and reliable consequence) So I come up with a system of determinism and non determinism which cannot exist without relative issues of each other. So I guess my suggestion is the word determinism is relative, that's got it I think, so our philosophical concepts and so on using the word determinism may be somewhat not so applicable for the expectations in their individual values. Once each and every single exact moment is agreed to be 100% determined the outcome invites the participation of indeterminism and things to do with process or time, which we use to perceive these things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 03:24 PM
 
39,247 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5101
Concepts before labels again it seems. The preferred default seems to be determinism by implication of a combination of non random but unplanned events. That isn't provable any more than a plan behind every one of those events is disprovable, but it isn't necessary for the explanation of our actions and choices to propose them. The principle of parsimony applies here.

So, using the approved methods of assessing data, determinism seems the preferred default.

Where does that leave Free Will? we have choices and after all I suppose we would prefer that our choices have some basis other than emotional coin -flipping. Thus, like everything else in the universe, free will is actually an illusion, but it is very convenient for us to go along with the illusion in our daily life, as we do in all other things.

After all, nobody is ever going to refuse to sit on a chair on the grounds that the atoms comprise it are made of nothing, as near as makes no difference.

Where this relates to topic is that the defaults of physics and science and indeed rational thought, seems to have merit and the 'just supposes' do not, except as interesting and often useful hypotheses.

Thus, in evolution, abiogenesis is actually the preferred default where we have no proof one way or the other.

A natural cause is the preferred default in cosmic origins, even if no Cause we can think of seems very probable.

Failing a sound scientific case for an ordered and created universe, a naturally -occurring one is the preferred default, where we have little proof about its origins.

The message for atheists is: if reason and evidence counts for anything, you have got on the right side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 08:01 PM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,020,147 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
If I get you rightly, this touches on the materialist default. It and determinism seems to select materialism and determinist causality as the preferred theory to use in relation to explaining data.

As I see it, it is not denied that there cannot be other explanations for observed data than it is all particles and physics (and no matter what goes on at Quantum level, it makes no difference to the reliability of physics).

That of course would tend to elicit the requirement that materialism explain everything down to the last nano -particle. Materialism obviously cannot do that, and the claim has been made that this means that materialism has failed (which seems wrong to me) but has been proven wrong, which surely is wrong, because 'don't know' means 'don't know'. It does not mean 'Well, I must be right, if you can't prove everything.').

It is annoying then for those with a case for the mysterious, hidden and speculative, that materialism is still claimed as the preferred default, when there is so much that it can't explain.

Quite simply that overlooks that everything we can explain conforms to materialist physics. Except Quantum. And NED's. And a lot of other stuff. But there it is either imperfectly understood or not understood at all, in which case there is no real evidence to support the Other interpretation, which is based on nothing but unvalidated speculation.

Though sometimes attempts are made to prove it by cheating with claims of divine revelation or messages from Beyond, which also are not validated, so it becomes a huge circular argument, which materialism is not.

The Determinist case is somewhat the same. We have choices, but there is compelling evidence one way or the other as to whether it really is a random coin -flip of will or whether there are factors involved in the choice which (if only we knew them all, and had the suitably subtle software) in principle, we could predict the choice. That we can point to some of the factors that influence our choice might suggest that determinism has the best case and the other side in fact has nothing but the suggestion that there is 'something else'.

Pointing to unexplaineds is not following the evidence but leading it.
A couple of things here.

you are stating something about quantum that is not known. Nobody knows how it works or why it works. so they plug in a math model to make predictions. and it works. But the physicality of it is not known . do you know how they remove the universe "making choices"? Its a math trick. but it works.

materialism touches on the standard model, not the other way around. If we string enough words together you can get it by the stupid. Start at the standard model, Its all we have, there is nothing more. then go from there and see what happens.

Yes, it is incomplete. so what? it's all we have. So, can there be enough state changes that the illusion of "free" emerges. A big fat "yes, that's one of a few valid conclusions". Unless of course we have some agenda in the way. Can the physicality of QM introduce some randomness into the brain to have it look "free". Yes again, that's possible. "illusion" meaning different than we think it is, not if it is real or not.

Can you show me one bit of information that is passed on without some interaction between something? I will take one. Just one. you pick it and i'll stick it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 08:12 PM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,020,147 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post

The message for atheists is: if reason and evidence counts for anything, you have got on the right side.
lmao. haven't heard this before. "we have reason and evidence and they don't."

I am not abusing and/or degrading any brain that may need help until it can fend for itself. False hope brings real strength. That is empirical. So to say it never does is not rational? some will always need the boat.

Now brains that are trying to control other brains for power. That is a different story. So it gets back to "reason" again. religion can help or hurt. If it is helping it is not my concern. atheist can be trying to help or control. If they are helping they are not my concern.

I don't care about what I don't believe in. I do care about real people doing bad things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 09:52 PM
 
39,247 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
A couple of things here.

you are stating something about quantum that is not known. Nobody knows how it works or why it works. so they plug in a math model to make predictions. and it works. But the physicality of it is not known . do you know how they remove the universe "making choices"? Its a math trick. but it works.

materialism touches on the standard model, not the other way around. If we string enough words together you can get it by the stupid. Start at the standard model, Its all we have, there is nothing more. then go from there and see what happens.

Yes, it is incomplete. so what? it's all we have. So, can there be enough state changes that the illusion of "free" emerges. A big fat "yes, that's one of a few valid conclusions". Unless of course we have some agenda in the way. Can the physicality of QM introduce some randomness into the brain to have it look "free". Yes again, that's possible. "illusion" meaning different than we think it is, not if it is real or not.

Can you show me one bit of information that is passed on without some interaction between something? I will take one. Just one. you pick it and i'll stick it.
Well, yes, I agree. It seems to be what I was saying so I presume that you are not asking me to produce evidence to undermine the case for working from the knowns rather than speculations about the unknowns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 11:47 PM
 
40,177 posts, read 26,806,349 times
Reputation: 6057
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You are not correctly evaluating the problem of self-reflection in a state machine. The entire configuration of computer hardware and software IS the state machine . . . and the state of the entire configuration of computer hardware and software IS the state that must itself be observed. That leaves nowhere within the entire configuration of computer hardware and software for the observer "program" to reside.When you recognize the impossibility of observing the entire state of the brain from within the brain without altering the entire state of the brain . . . it will become more understandable. The field theories of consciousness are just scratching the surface of this phenomenon.Again you misunderstand the relevant point. In the natural state it is always just individual notes. The entire concept and understanding of melody and rhythm is an abstract feature of consciousness . . . ANY pattern, per se, does NOT really exist (as a pattern). It is always just individual notes. It is our consciousness and its ability to create abstractions that separates us from the rest of the sentient animals. Our conscious sense of Self is itself and abstraction . . . but unlike the abstractions of music and melody . . . it DOES exist as an abstract form of energy capable of interacting identifiably with reality. It is what we are conversing with in this forum.
Every observation provides information about reality . . . but not every observation is an explanation! Explanations require more than mere observation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Wrong. There is no worker thread or other computer or anything that is NOT already part of the state to BE observed. The entire brain and ALL its processes are the state that comprises consciousness. Any change in anything within the system to reflect the observation (new state) would of necessity alter the very state that was to be observed before it could BE observed. You seem to be knowledgeable enough about state machines to understand this, mordant. The brain is the brain and its entire state is what has to be observed . . . that leaves no place IN the brain for that to take place!
We are not talking about incorporating or using feedback from the observation of the brain state . . . that is NOT the issue. We are talking about manifesting the observation state WITHOUT interrupting or altering the very state to be observed.
No it is NOT. It only exists as individual informatioon. The composite or pattern or whatever other abstraction ONLY exists within a consciousness.It tells us only that a feature emerged from the system. That is purely observational and NOT explanatory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
We are talking in circles because you refuse to get out from inside the system (state machine) and analyze it from without. Self-referencing happens automatically and we experience it as our sense of Self or Being who is OBSERVING the content of our thoughts and sensations . . . it is indeed separate from the specific content or sensations of our state of consciousness that is being observed at any point in time. The latter . . . (what is being observed) . . . and the state that is doing the observing of it cannot simultaneously reside within the brain state that is producing what is being observed.
This is a distraction from the central issue of trying to simultaneously represent the state of the brain to be observed AND the state that is doing the observing within the same neuronal states. That is not multi-tasking . . . that is an impossibility. Clearly the observer state must emerge simultaneously from the state to be observed as a resonant neural field!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I kind of like this particular juxtaposition of posts . . . even though you are agreeing with someone I have on ignore. You really do not seem to get that the state to be observed (self-reference sense of Self or Being) is simultaneous with the state of consciousness to be observed. They cannot co-locate using your strictly material brain process viewpoint of consciousness. I realize this goes against everything you WANT to believe or not believe . . . but the reality is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissily Mordentroge View Post
Chasing your tails you are.
Consciousness, self iteration, or whatever you want to call it may take place in a portion of the brain not influencing or altering a process or processes it observes taking place within other parts of that brain.
What about the ENTIRE brain state is what is to be referenced do you NOT understand??? Our consciousness is produced and nuanced by every single thing going on in the brain during each instant of consciousness. It is that entire complex brain state that is "observed" by our consciousness. It can NOT reside in any separate area of the brain because all areas of the brain comprise the complete state to be observed. It is ONLY because our consciousness resides as a resonant neural field within the unified field that it can observe the brain state that produces it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2015, 04:22 AM
 
39,247 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5101
Mystic, Think of it as a baseball or football team. Each one is doing something different, though related and working as a team. each member is a real physical entity. Their actions are real but not an entity (it is what they do, or 'energy'. But the concept of the whole 'Team state' The concept of the 'Team' and their actions and purpose is entirely a human convention. The 'Team' does not exist outside of human conventions.

It is the same with brain. The various organs are real. What they do is also real but does not exist apart from observed 'work', 'actions' or 'energy'. The concept of an entire brain -state is a conceptually valid one, based on our observations and comprehension. But that is as much as it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2015, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,102,293 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
What about the ENTIRE brain state is what is to be referenced do you NOT understand??? Our consciousness is produced and nuanced by every single thing going on in the brain during each instant of consciousness. It is that entire complex brain state that is "observed" by our consciousness. It can NOT reside in any separate area of the brain because all areas of the brain comprise the complete state to be observed. It is ONLY because our consciousness resides as a resonant neural field within the unified field that it can observe the brain state that produces it.
The simpler explanation, as I've said many times, is that the brain has a feedback loop that is self-observing. This even is a possible explanation for the observed apparent delay between deciding and being aware of the decision. Your rigid conceptualization is not the only possible explanation for self awareness.

Even computers can observe their own state. That's been going on since at least the 1960's when multiprocessing operating systems were commercialized. They used to be called interrupt vectors or simply interrupts. These days they are called threads, microthreads and/or fibers.

Forgive me for laboring this point but I have been thinking in these terms since I wrote RST 28H assembler instructions on a Z80 microprocessor running the LSDOS operating system back in the 8 bit computing days. The state of any processing system can be divided. The total executing state of the mainline system does not have to consume 100% of resources. Some resources can be devoted exclusively to state monitoring and reporting and actions can be taken based on the observed state, to feed back into and modify the mainline system. The mainline system can even make requests of the state monitoring API.

If an unremarkable workhorse coder like me could do that in the 1980s then surely the human brain can do it. It may well be (and probably is) structured differently by organic brains compared to digital computers but the basic principle is quite simple and unmysterious and does not require the existence of a "neural field" that you are so fond of.

Now ... is it possible there is a universal consciousness field of some sort? Sure, although I see nothing to make it likely. Do we NEED that field to explain what we've observed so far? Not that I can see. Where does that leave me? With a direction to investigate that is more rather than less likely to produce fruit. Where does that leave you? With a direction to investigate that is favorable to your particular theory of consciousness.

To each their own ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top