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.
There's no debate over well established science. No you are not telling me anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
If you say anything opposite of what I said you are wrong. Get over it.
There is nothing to get over. You are basically lost when it comes to basic college freshman level biology and therefore you need to up your understanding or "get over" being corrected every time you post false things about well established science.
The rest of your rant is not worth it's weight in salt and thus not worth responding to.
I knew what you meant, but I felt like giving you a hard time. Well, not just that. I was also taking into account your rough-riding over the holism that is implicit in my theory, so I wanted to emphasize that, actually, the "living" vs. "non-living" distinction is not as clear-cut as we might like. A carbon atom sitting in a lump of coal is not alive, but a carbon atom in the body of a living organism (especially a conscious organism)...well...still not really "alive" just in itself but...it's a bit more complicated. It is not technically alive, as such, just in itself, but as a component of life - and given the type of holism I have in mind - the "alive" vs "not-alive" distinction becomes more misleading than helpful. In this context, the life/non-life distinction sets us up for a frame of mind that works against good comprehension.
In a lump of coal, the carbon atom behaves in a basically algorithmic fashion (+/- quantum jitters). I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect that in a living body - especially in a brain cell - the carbon atom's behavior becomes non-algorithmic in a way that is not just purely random. This stems from my belief that qualitative aspects of Reality are fundamental and causally relevant. Current physics and chemistry do not account for qualia in this way, so if my theory is correct, they need to fail at some point. On the good news side, this makes my theory testable/falsifiable, in principle. The bad news is that to test this theory, we somehow need to track micro-scale (very near quantum scale) activity in real time in the living cells of conscious creatures while they are actually having experiences. So far as I know, this is untested territory and it might be impossible to do in practical terms. But hopefully some clever folks can figure out how to do it. Unfortunately, at the moment, scientists see no reason to think that atoms in living creatures would disobey standard quantum rules, so I doubt there will be much motivation to even try to test it any time soon.
I can appreciate that ... lmao
But I think I am a supporter holism. i often state that little pieces working together to form bigger pieces is what we observe. the universe seems to be based on a hierarchy of structure. I feel that it isn't even pieces that we see. Like you said, when we find out the mechanisms that QM is based on we will understand more.
In fact, my base claim is that we are just a less complex structure in a more complex structure. The program and the hardware are inseparable to me. that is holism at its finest isn't it?
I take one small step forward, based on that notion, and ask "if we classify a cell as life and that cell is less complex than us and we are 'alive", how do we classify the the larger system that we are part of?" or "If we are qualia in a larger set of qualia how do we define the larger system? holistically speaking?"
In my opinion, qualia, monism, pantheism and pluralism, and the periodic table all fit together to some degree. I am even ok with wrapping those notions in a non literal christian narrative without the "born sinners' and "convert everybody" parts for now. In Fact, the only thing that doesn't match observation is the anti-religious sect of atheism's blind faith statement of "deny everything because they feel religion is the most dangerous thing around.", 'deny the science that "they" can use use to make atheism harder to sell." and "my type of god only." other than those stances I am open to a lot of things.
We have had to remind you all too many times. This is the Religion and Spirituality forum. This is not the Science forum. If the Science posts continue, this thread will be closed.
This stems from my belief that qualitative aspects of Reality are fundamental and causally relevant. Current physics and chemistry do not account for qualia in this way, so if my theory is correct, they need to fail at some point.
BTW: Although we might be a long ways from testing quantum effects in conscious brains, there may be other ways to get at essentially the same root phenomena. In fact, I think we already have a great deal of indirect evidence. Aside from being indirect, the problem here is that this sort of evidence generally gets categorized as "psi research," and thus generally ignored by the mainstream.
Here is one good example:
Dean Radin is typecast as a "psi researcher" and thus mostly ignored. I doubt that anyone here will have the time or patience to watch this video, but I think the data he is pointing at (effects of conscious attention on the double-slit experiment) is valid and it supports my suggestion that qualia are causally significant (although the psi research is aimed at something a bit different, namely, the idea that consciousness collapses the waveform).
I'm not sure if I can tease out a difference between "consciousness collapses the wave" and "qualia are causally significant". I need to think more about that. My initial intuition is that "qualia are causally significant" could be true, even if "consciousness collapses the wave" is not, technically, the best interpretation of QM. In other words, the mechanism for qualia's causal power might be something other than collapse of the wave. But IF consciousness does, in fact, collapse the wave, then I think this would be strong support for qualia's causal significance in the evolution of physical systems.
And, of course, we need to keep in mind the spiritual significance of all of this. If qualia are fundamental, then consciousness could be fundamental, and if consciousness is fundamental, then MphD's thesis gains some potential credibility - although I still think that the Christian interpretation is an unnecessary addition overlaying some deeper spiritual implications.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 08-04-2018 at 01:30 PM..
We have had to remind you all too many times. This is the Religion and Spirituality forum. This is not the Science forum. If the Science posts continue, this thread will be closed.
Sorry. I just saw this. I hope my last post doesn't cause the thread to be closed. But I must protest. The topic is non-magical (i.e., basically naturalistic/science-friendly) spirituality. I don't see how we can even talk about this without science playing a major role. And I would doubly protest because atheists are spiritual too, and their spirituality is just as valid as the more traditional religious kinds. But atheist spirituality is nearly always naturalistic - i.e., science friendly. So, again, how can atheists participate in the forum if they can't reference the core of their spiritual beliefs - namely, the notion that valid beliefs ought to be consistent with credible science?
In any case, if my last post is seen as reason to close the thread, I would beg you: Please delete the post, rather than closing the whole thread. I will refrain from further posts of this sort, if (despite my protests) they are, indeed, the sorts of posts that are not allowed.
Sorry. I just saw this. I hope my last post doesn't cause the thread to be closed. But I must protest. The topic is non-magical (i.e., basically naturalistic/science-friendly) spirituality. I don't see how we can even talk about this without science playing a major role. And I would doubly protest because atheists are spiritual too, and their spirituality is just as valid as the more traditional religious kinds. But atheist spirituality is nearly always naturalistic - i.e., science friendly. So, again, how can atheists participate in the forum if they can't reference the core of their spiritual beliefs - namely, the notion that valid beliefs ought to be consistent with credible science?
In any case, if my last post is seen as reason to close the thread, I would beg you: Please delete the post, rather than closing the whole thread. I will refrain from further posts of this sort, if (despite my protests) they are, indeed, the sorts of posts that are not allowed.
Then talk about spirituality. The moderators have given way too much leeway to the members posting in this thread. Sometimes there have been multiple pages of posts discussing various topics of Science without a mention of Spirituality (or Religion).
A post & an answer is one thing. Several pages of posts is quite another. Talk about Spirituality all you want. Spirituality is one of the main topics for this forum.
Then talk about spirituality. The moderators have given way too much leeway to the members posting in this thread. Sometimes there have been multiple pages of posts discussing various topics of Science without a mention of Spirituality (or Religion).
A post & an answer is one thing. Several pages of posts is quite another. Talk about Spirituality all you want. Spirituality is one of the main topics for this forum.
According to Robert C. Solomon, an American Professor of Philosophy, "spirituality is coextensive with religion and it is not incompatible with or opposed to science or the scientific outlook. It seems that the "no science" discussion policy is trying to thread a very thin line that is incompatible with a non-magical, science-based spirituality. I suggest that when the science requires further detailed explanation beyond one or two posts that we agree to start a thread on it in the Science or Philosophy forum. I do NOT want this thread closed but Gaylen and I have rather detailed science behind our respective views that need to be explained for those who are unaware of the actual issues involved.
"Qualia" appears to me to be the crux of the question of "spirituality" in a "non-magical" sense. It is definitely a "metaphysical" concept and one that touches most closely on what may be termed "spiritual" in how we react to or incorporate into our attitudes those experiences as one may react to stubbing a toe with outrage or a kind of shrug at the vicissitudes of life being expressive of a "spirit" of our perception of how we fit in the world. Gaylewoof, figure out what I am trying to say and clarify it please.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem." Is there a sort of theme in the way we individually approach these experiences?
"Qualia" appears to me to be the crux of the question of "spirituality" in a "non-magical" sense. It is definitely a "metaphysical" concept and one that touches most closely on what may be termed "spiritual" in how we react to or incorporate into our attitudes those experiences as one may react to stubbing a toe with outrage or a kind of shrug at the vicissitudes of life being expressive of a "spirit" of our perception of how we fit in the world. Gaylewoof, figure out what I am trying to say and clarify it please.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem." Is there a sort of theme in the way we individually approach these experiences?
Qualia are the ESSENCE of spirituality because it is through them that spirituality manifests. Pretending that they have nothing to do with spirituality is like claiming H2O has nothing to do with water.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem." Is there a sort of theme in the way we individually approach these experiences?
I think the theme is grounded on our reactions to the idea that qualia are "just physical" or "nothing other than neurons firing." People who favor this "nothing but" approach tend not to appreciate the what is actually so hard about the hard problem of consciousness. They tend to think that finding the neural correlates, for example, will explain consciousness. Well, finding the neural correlates will probably solve most of the "easy" problems (the questions about mechanism), but won't solve the hard problem because, for any given physical mechanism, we can still ask why it feels like this or that (where the "this" and "that" are "indexical references" - which is to say, references that are relative to the particular circumstances of the person making the references.
For example, if I say "My house is over there!" the location I'm referring to depend on where I am located at the moment that I say "over there." In the case of qualia, the indexical reference depends on who is "pointing" to the quale because the quale are experienced subjectively. Giving a street address locates the house objectively. Anyone can find it, based on the street address. But the indexical reference requires particular knowledge of the subject who make the reference. The neural correlate of a quale is somewhat like a street address. As a physicalist, I believe that qualia do, so to speak, have "street addresses" (that is to say, qualia are physical processes). But it is crucial to notice that the "street address" analogy breaks down in an important way. Yes, I can "find the house" using the street address, but logic prohibits me from "entering the house" (so to speak). Nothing in the street address analogy hints as this logical barrier, hence my warning about the analogy breaking down. The subjective aspect of qualitative experience implies a peculiar sort of indexical reference that can't be replaced by objective facts - no matter how many objective facts we can gather.
But what I was really trying to get at in my earlier post was that the peculiar type of indexical reference that we find with qualia is, itself, causally significant in a way that is not accounted for by the objective aspects understood by physics. It's not just the "street address" that matters; the "feeling of being" the house at that address also matters. And you can't comprehend this "feeling of being" by just knowing the street address; you have to literally be there. And, in the case of qualia, the "being there" means being the physical process. I and only I can be the particular physical process that I am. No one else can be me. When I claim that qualia are causally significant, I am claiming that something in the subjective aspect of the feeling is making a difference in how I behave. If properly understood, this will be seen as a radical departure from the standard operation procedure of science. And, as MPhD points out, this radical departure from current science is a step into the spiritual essence of being. Spirituality is the way in which each of us, individually - in the "privacy of our own essence" - comes to terms with this boundlessly amazing fact of our own subjective existence. Science presumably can - and, hopefully, someday will - track down a bunch of neural correlates, but the ultimate mystery is not one for science to "solve" - it is a mystery to simply be "lived in."
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.
