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.
lmao at "stand up to" . Like M-theory or inflation do? How many observations does inflation have holding it up as scientifically sound?
Is there a middle ground? Is it reasonable for a person to think in terms of what is more probable or what is less probable? I don't do "know" only or "don't know" only. I am more of a "let try this or that and see what we come up with." "we can never know" or "the truth is only what I can "hold" in my hand" are earth bound views to me.
I don't know much about M theory, but my impression is that it is very far from a mature theory, even by the somewhat looser standards of theoretical physics compared to more practical sciences. It may stand up to scrutiny, it may not, too soon to tell. Ask again in 40 years - course if I'm not dead by then I'll probably be pretty out of it
Inflation? No, nothing scientific about it, that is a red herring. Anything that is based solely on predicting human behavior is fundamentally unpredictable in my view, at least to an extent. Economics is more philosophy than science in my view, though I'm sure all the economists would take serious issue with that. Since none of this matters beyond our own entertainment, I'll go ahead and say it
On to knowledge and probability - I guess it depends on whether you think probabilities are useful or not. I tend to think not, but then that is what you would expect since I fall squarely into the "truth is what I can hold" crowd. Philosophically, I think there is certainly middle ground.... but you're never going to get anywhere trying to support the argument for a separate consciousness with science - the science and the epistemology of science clearly support the other side of that coin. If the philosophical argument is going to be based in science alone, then there is no middle ground at all.
I rest my case about denying. But Whatever you say
I am not sure what I denied? What are you talking about here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
it is an analogy. but it fits nicely when you understand what is going on.
I fear that it is my understanding what is going on that makes me realize why it is a bad analogy. Allow me to repeat myself in slightly different words. A radio is merely a machine. Unless there is a broadcast tower sending it "music" then it will simply sit there and do nothing.
That is not analogous to us at all. There is no evidence at this time that our consciousness comes externally from us at all. There is no basis for thinking we are merely receiving antennae for something that is coming from elsewhere.
To use your words, the "emr" that is the source of the "music" comes from external sources. The radio is merely a receiving tool for it. That is not analogous to consciousness at all.
Perhaps rather than radio, a CD player might be a better analogy for you. That makes more sense of what it appears you are trying to say. In that, when it is turned on it produces music but if you take it apart at no point will you find "music" inside it.
"Music" is just an emergent attribute of the process that is going on in the CD player, which is analogous to how a flame is an emergent attribute of the chemical processes in a candle. And yes, we could make this analogous to human consciousness. There is little reason at this time (none that I know of) to think, for example, that human consciousness is anything but an emergent attribute of the processes in our brain, using the energy we already know is in there, can measure, and we know where it "goes" when we die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
You couldn't even understand that you are made of far more than atoms in any "now", so how could I expect a rational evaluation from you other than anti religious hate.
This sentence is quite confusing. Firstly because I have not expressed or indicated any "religious hate". Secondly because I did not say I do not understand something, rather I asked you to name for me the particles you are referring to so I know what you are talking about. I am not sure as yet why you are stone walling this question. But to talk to you about the particles we are made up of, it would help if you name the particles you are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Lmao at "beamed in" thats just silly.
I think so too, but alas that is _exactly_ the kind of hypothesis at least two users on the Religion forum espouse with some regularity. They believe that human consciousness is beamed in from some external sources.... and that our brain does not produce it or create it, but receives it and filters it.
That is why, with respect, I merely suggest you be careful with an analogy to "radio" because you risk being conflated with people espousing that kind of idea. As I said a CD player, or a Piano maybe, would be a better analogy for what I _think_ you are getting at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
If you stop at "atoms" in the brain, then don't call anything past that limited statment "magic" or made up.
That is not what I am saying at all. Let me try it a little clearer and see if I can improve how I am getting it across lest we simply talk past each other ad infinitum.
What I am saying is that we have two things:
1) The energy that comes into our body with food, metabolism and so forth.
2) A list of processes that use that energy.
And what I observe is that many people who do not understand how a process is using that energy.... will start to invent other energies without evidence to explain away their misunderstanding.
Our brain uses the energy we know about, and it produces consciousness and it stores memories. We do not know at this time HOW the brain does this.
And my concern is simply this: Us not knowing how the brain uses the energy we put into our body.... does _not_ mean there must be some other energy at play here too. And it is THAT which I am calling "made up". Because that is exactly what it is at this time. There is no evidence that any other energy is at play here other than what we take in from our food.
If someone DOES evidence some other energy at play though, I am all ears and I will be the first to praise the person who finds it.
You won't get a definitive answer to either question, because unfortunately far too much depends on frame of reference and, more personally, the abilities of both you and me to understand what we say.
All those caveats aside, energy is taken to be a property of objects by which they interact with their environment (other objects). Given the many forms of it we see, I suspect that, (a) this description is somewhat inadequate, and (b) the "forms" we observe are the results if you will rather than the energy itself. The candle flame that Nozz mentioned is not the energy itself but the result of breaking bonds and forming new ones between atoms in the air and in the wick.
I have to agree that the radio is an extremely poor analogy, even if I were inclined to agree with the spiritual perspective on this debate. It only seems like a good one if you have no clue how the radio works. Once you do, you can quite literally crack it open and see how the "music gets inside" if you like. You take one look and can point out which part of the radio does which part of the operation.
So if you want to use the radio as an analogy, you have to either be talking to someone who does not know how a radio works, or provide an explanation of how the human body is like a radio for the "signal" of the consciousness - what part is the antenna, diode, etc, etc....
Since you are talking to people who do understand how a radio works, you're kind of painted into a corner.
I have to agree that the radio is an extremely poor analogy, even if I were inclined to agree with the spiritual perspective on this debate. It only seems like a good one if you have no clue how the radio works. Once you do, you can quite literally crack it open and see how the "music gets inside" if you like. You take one look and can point out which part of the radio does which part of the operation.
So if you want to use the radio as an analogy, you have to either be talking to someone who does not know how a radio works, or provide an explanation of how the human body is like a radio for the "signal" of the consciousness - what part is the antenna, diode, etc, etc....
Since you are talking to people who do understand how a radio works, you're kind of painted into a corner.
lmao. there is no corner.
You are right prop. I am pointing to something we do know to compare, or try and describe something we don't know. You are looking for a literal interpretations I am not. prop, let me just say I do not believe in religious after life. I actually think our life is exactly like the flame. I used that example many times before myself. We come and go as the flame does. We don't die because we actually are not alive in the sense we are separated from the universe any more than the flame is from the room. Like you said, people can do mystic talk or physics talk, whatever floats your boat.
What part makes the radio a radio? singer? song writer? transmitter? emr waves? towers? The Plug into the wall? I am ok with stopping at the radio "box" in your house. As long as we are clear about that. But stopping there is a limited world view. I am just as ok with stopping at the brain. I just don't hate people that go past the brain (down to quarks or connections to its surroundings) if they are using proper data that is generaly accepted. Just because atheist say something does mean they are right because I am atheist.
what is a radio in the room. Its an input device that processes a signal. That's not a brain? really? The radio is just far less complex. Why do radios generate so much heat and the body doesn't? It is because of how the electrons pass around. But they both data process.
The radio Fits perfectly because of what you said. we know a radio in terms of its interactions that make it up. We don't know the human and the interactions that make humans up. In other words, can the human be alive without the universe being alive? Like a radio: can it play music without in the "outside" systems. If we didnt know radio's and found the emr would we know the relationship between the two.
You won't get a definitive answer to either question, because unfortunately far too much depends on frame of reference and, more personally, the abilities of both you and me to understand what we say.
All those caveats aside, energy is taken to be a property of objects by which they interact with their environment (other objects). Given the many forms of it we see, I suspect that, (a) this description is somewhat inadequate, and (b) the "forms" we observe are the results if you will rather than the energy itself. The candle flame that Nozz mentioned is not the energy itself but the result of breaking bonds and forming new ones between atoms in the air and in the wick.
good points
you brought up energy. I asked you what it is. Its good you said you don't know. Nobody knows. now that we know we don't know what's next? I say use what you do know to try and figure things out that you don't know. Like the radio, the flame, and mord's battery. First just talking about it. then mathematically, and then onto testing. Thank you, buy the way, for the straight answer
The energy you feel as heat or the light you see in the flame comes from a few areas. As I am guessing you know. When electrons move around, they absorb and release energy. there is a 'energy carrying particle" associated with these transfers. In the fire case it is the photon.
Conscious energy. Conscious energy wouldn't look any different than any other energy transfer that we know of if we were really small compare to the consciousness doing the thinking. Do you get that part? Exactly the same If you were on a Carbon atom in the paraffin you would not see the flame. You would claim "no flame". Heck, you might not even know you went from a liquid to a gas before the 2 oxygen jumped ya.
You are right prop. I am pointing to something we do know to compare, or try and describe something we don't know. You are looking for a literal interpretations I am not. prop, let me just say I do not believe in religious after life. I actually think our life is exactly like the flame. I used that example many times before myself. We come and go as the flame does. We don't die because we actually are not alive in the sense we are separated from the universe any more than the flame is from the room. Like you said, people can do mystic talk or physics talk, whatever floats your boat.
What part makes the radio a radio? singer? song writer? transmitter? emr waves? towers? The Plug into the wall? I am ok with stopping at the radio "box" in your house. As long as we are clear about that. But stopping there is a limited world view. I am just as ok with stopping at the brain. I just don't hate people that go past the brain (down to quarks or connections to its surroundings) if they are using proper data that is generaly accepted. Just because atheist say something does mean they are right because I am atheist.
what is a radio in the room. Its an input device that processes a signal. That's not a brain? really? The radio is just far less complex. Why do radios generate so much heat and the body doesn't? It is because of how the electrons pass around. But they both data process.
The radio Fits perfectly because of what you said. we know a radio in terms of its interactions that make it up. We don't know the human and the interactions that make humans up. In other words, can the human be alive without the universe being alive? Like a radio: can it play music without in the "outside" systems. If we didnt know radio's and found the emr would we know the relationship between the two.
Funny thing about perspective - I would say that what I just highlighted is exactly what makes it a bad analogy. Perhaps you and I simply have different expectations of an analogy.
What makes a radio a radio is what it does, nothing more. No part does it because no one part does what the radio does. At a minimum you need about four of them.
Radios do not data process. They add no information to the signal they receive, they do not manipulate it in any way that changes the information in it or comes up with new information. At it's most basic, it simply separates the modulated information (audio) from the more powerful carrier wave.
I will never understand why it is so hard for people to conceive of a state in which they do not exist... and it always seems to be a near future that causes so much anxiety, not the other 5 billion years that the Earth has existed for.
I tend to think of reincarnation as a continuation of our thoughts, gestures, ideals, etc., because when you think about what truly 'makes' a person, that's often what defines them best. But it isn't some literal transplantation of a unique 'self' into another body... I don't even think that happens to people as they age. In fact, if you were to suddenly become what you were 5 years ago, you would probably hate it... it's good that the old self is gone.
And the phenomenon of 'self' isn't even unique from individual to individual... the urge grows accustomed to attracting certain energies or ideas, but the urge to cling to what is familiar, what is comfortable, etc... or I suppose the urge to find the opposite... isn't unique to any person.
It's the exact same primal impulse operating at the core of every individual... and the process of synthesizing new ideas or continuing old ones isn't exclusive to any one of those selves. When the urge at the center of your being is gone, everything you do and everything you are will continue to occur. People will keep telling themselves they're special, or that they need things or want things, people will keep having ideas and keep behaving in a certain manner.
you brought up energy. I asked you what it is. Its good you said you don't know. Nobody knows. now that we know we don't know what's next? I say use what you do know to try and figure things out that you don't know. Like the radio, the flame, and mord's battery. First just talking about it. then mathematically, and then onto testing. Thank you, buy the way, for the straight answer
The energy you feel as heat or the light you see in the flame comes from a few areas. As I am guessing you know. When electrons move around, they absorb and release energy. there is a 'energy carrying particle" associated with these transfers. In the fire case it is the photon.
Conscious energy. Conscious energy wouldn't look any different than any other energy transfer that we know of if we were really small compare to the consciousness doing the thinking. Do you get that part? Exactly the same If you were on a Carbon atom in the paraffin you would not see the flame. You would claim "no flame". Heck, you might not even know you went from a liquid to a gas before the 2 oxygen jumped ya.
Science goes nowhere useful without straight answers
The photon is an energy carrying particle in the same way that electrons are, and atoms are, or that a baseball is. I suspect that you are imbuing photons with more mystique than they can really claim. I may be mistaken there though, it is just an inference.
What makes you think a consciousness has a size?
The thing you seem to be missing is that though we do not know what energy is at is most fundamental level, we always can observe it's effect when it is transferred. What is missing from the "consciousness as energy" paradigm is any evidence of that energy being transferred when the body dies.
Awful? An eternity of no pain, no disease or illness, no jealousy, no hate, no greed, no poverty, etc.
Oh, and you can hang out with who you want. If you had a mean Uncle on Earth you don't need to see or be with him on the other side.
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.
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.
