Mind Over Matter

_{Barry Arrington
January 1, 2013

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place.

William J Murray

Comments

As to:
”But gravity and entropy, as part of the physical reality, don’t depend upon any minds in order to be what they are"
Actually,,, LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (General Relativity, i.e. gravity) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf and: Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! - January 2010 Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/bornagain77_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Nothing quite so ironic as someone unwittingly employing philosophy while complaining that philosophy is "bunk".William J Murray_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

KN said: " But gravity and entropy, as part of the physical reality, don’t depend upon any minds in order to be what they are — if there were no minds, presumably, apples would still fall from trees and iron would still rust." There's two meaningful ways to go about this; there's the rational approach, which requires mind to be considered primary, or there's the scientific approach, which examines the physical world to find best explanations. Both means refute your position. However, if the exhaustive nature of BA77's information on why nothing occurs in a quantum substrate universe without a conscious mind observationally collapsing potential states into realized states cannot move your view, I'm certainly not about to attempt it. Your view about a concrete reality existing outside of interaction with conscious observers, IMO, has been scientifically disproven for a long, long time, and all the evidence since (see BA77's links and citations) have done nothing but confirm this perspective. What the physical world is (in any operable and definable sense) depends on how it is observed. It has no state other than as potential without discrete observation. "(One might think that these physical events somehow still depend on some transcendent or infinite Mind, maybe.) " Since you enjoy appeals to authority: "The stuff of the world is mind-stuff." - Sir Arthur Eddington, Nobel Physicist "There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists, only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." - Max Planck, Nobel Physicist "When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." -- Max Planck "The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a like a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter - not of course our individual minds, but the mind in which the atoms out of which our individual minds have grown exist as thoughts. -- Sir James Jeans, Nobel Physicist Observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it... We compel the electron to assume a definite position... We ourselves produce the result of the experiment. - Pascual Jordan "When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." 0 Eugene Wigner "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'Espagnat "In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it." - Martin Rees "[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." - Werner Heisenberg Well, maybe I'm in pretty good company. I'm not sure what it would take to dislodge the notion of a atomist-like, physical reality with set characteristics that exists independent of conscious observation thereof if over a hundred years of theory-supporting research and experiment, and sound reasoning back to necessary assumption of primacy of mind cannot do the job. The idea of a materialist-like universe that exists independent of mind, and the idea that consciousness sprang up from that physical world, has been soundly refuted by 100 years of physics (not to mention being rationally untenable in the first place). BA77 soundly and exhaustively defeats this view at least once a week, sometimes several times a week. However, we are free to believe, ignore and dismiss whatever we wish.William J Murray_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
I make no secret of the fact that I think philosophy is bunk.
Philosophy is the love of wisdom. There's a word for people who reject wisdom. If you were banned in the past it's probably because whoever did so could not tolerate fools.
You get nowhere just gazing at your navel.
You just did philosophy.
You need to look at the universe as it presents itself, not as you wish it to be.
That's philosophy. If you truly think philosophy is bunk, why do you engage in it?Mung_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox: I think philosophy is bunk... you need to look at the universe as it presents itself, not as you wish it to be.
Evidence without a framework of interpretation is meaningless- merely sense data. While I would agree much philosophy is tedious and ultimately useless, the study and understanding of what I would call "practical philosophy" - the common sense epistemological framework that humans seem to be born with - seems to be worth studying because it can help to clarify thinking, yielding demonstrable benefits.CentralScrutinizer_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Mr. Fox, do you have anything to add to the conversation? Besides sneers and scoffs I mean.
Please feel free to address me as Alan. It's your own fault, Barry. I am at a loss to understand why my posting privileges were restored without notice or explanation. (On the other hand, they were similarly and summarily withdrawn :) ) I make no secret of the fact that I think philosophy is bunk. I just can't take it seriously. You get nowhere just gazing at your navel. You need to look at the universe as it presents itself, not as you wish it to be.Alan Fox_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

In re: William J Murray @ 37
I hold the logical principles of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle to be objectively existent characteristics of mind. What we revise, IMO, are our descriptions of those characteristics, much as we revise our descriptions of gravity or entropy.
I can somewhat see where you're coming from here. But there's a tension, it seems to me, in this view. One fairly natural way of securing the objectivity of logic is by thinking of logical principles as being intrinsic to how reality is anyway, just as gravity and entropy are part of how reality is anyway. But gravity and entropy, as part of the physical reality, don't depend upon any minds in order to be what they are -- if there were no minds, presumably, apples would still fall from trees and iron would still rust. (One might think that these physical events somehow still depend on some transcendent or infinite Mind, maybe.) But, if the objectivity of physics is secured by being mind-transcendent objects and relations, then presumably the objectivity of logic could also be secured by being about mind-transcendent objects and relations -- namely the abstract objects and relations that we call the logical principles. And if logic no more depends on mind than physics does, then the objectivity of logic provides no basis for the ontological priority of mind. It seems to me that one would need to argue either that all objective knowledge, of both concreta (physics) and abstracta (logic), depends on some Mind -- so the objective is grounded in the subjective? -- or that neither physics nor logic are mind-dependent. In light of these considerations, I take the latter view. The difference between physics and logic is that our physical theories are true by virtue of explaining the causal relations between spatio-temporal events, whereas our logical theories are true by virtue of explicating the implicit norms of human reasoning. But the latter are just as objective in their own way as the former, because they are not subjective -- the norms of human reasoning do not depend on the mental states of any particular person.Kantian Naturalist_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Implicit in Graham2's questions (gripes) here,,,
Does anyone here have the slightest idea of how a ‘mind’ can work ? When does it appear (conception? birth? 3rd birthday?), when does it die ? Where is it ? (perhaps a little grey cloud above our head?), how does an immaterial mind communicate with our material brain? (telepathy ?, X-rays?). Do cats have a mind ? You lot appear to be remarkably willing to accept this kind of stuff, but equally lacking in curiosity about the obvious things."
,,,is the assumption that the material particles of the brain are sufficient within themselves to explain their own 'eternal' existence within space-time without reference to a prior 'non-local' cause. i.e. Material particles are assumed by materialists to be 'self sustaining'. But materialists are now known to be wrong in this metaphysical assumption of theirs. All the material particles of the universe, including all the material particles of Graham2's brain, are dependent a 'non-local' beyond space and time cause in order to explain their continued existence within space-time. Thus the more appropriate question that Graham2 should have asked is 'what is this beyond space and time (non-local) cause that material particles are dependent on? i.e. why does he even have a brain in the first place for his 'non-local' consciousness to interact with? Quantum Mechanics has now been extended to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it: ‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm A Quantum Delayed Choice Experiment - June 2012 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.4926v2.pdf Moreover: Another point of interest worth drawing out is that the brain has more switches than all the computers on earth,,,, Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html And computers with many switches have a huge problem with heat,,, Supercomputer architecture Excerpt: Throughout the decades, the management of heat density has remained a key issue for most centralized supercomputers.[4][5][6] The large amount of heat generated by a system may also have other effects, such as reducing the lifetime of other system components.[7] There have been diverse approaches to heat management, from pumping Fluorinert through the system, to a hybrid liquid-air cooling system or air cooling with normal air conditioning temperatures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer_architecture Yet the brain, even though it has as many switches as all the computers on earth, does not have such a problem with heat,,, Appraising the brain’s energy budget: Excerpt: In the average adult human, the brain represents about 2% of the body weight. Remarkably, despite its relatively small size, the brain accounts for about 20% of the oxygen and, hence, calories consumed by the body. This high rate of metabolism is remarkably constant despite widely varying mental and motoric activity. The metabolic activity of the brain is remarkably constant over time. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237.full THE EFFECT OF MENTAL ARITHMETIC ON CEREBRAL CIRCULATION AND METABOLISM Excerpt: Although Lennox considered the performance of mental arithmetic as “mental work”, it is not immediately apparent what the nature of that work in the physical sense might be if, indeed, there be any. If no work or energy transformation is involved in the process of thought, then it is not surprising that cerebral oxygen consumption is unaltered during mental arithmetic. Does Thinking Really Hard Burn More Calories? – By Ferris Jabr – July 2012 Excerpt: So a typical adult human brain runs on around 12 watts—a fifth of the power required by a standard 60 watt lightbulb. Compared with most other organs, the brain is greedy; pitted against man-made electronics, it is astoundingly efficient. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=thinking-hard-calories Moreover, the heat generated by computers is primarily because of the erasure of information,,, Landauer’s principle Of Note: “any logically irreversible manipulation of information, such as the erasure of a bit or the merging of two computation paths, must be accompanied by a corresponding entropy increase ,,, Specifically, each bit of lost information will lead to the release of an (specific) amount (at least kT ln 2) of heat.,,, Landauer’s Principle has also been used as the foundation for a new theory of dark energy, proposed by Gough (2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle Thus the brain is either operating on reversible computation principles no computer can come close to emulating (Charles Bennett), or, as is much more likely, the brain is not erasing information from its memory as the material computer is required to do,, because our memories are stored on the ‘spiritual’ level rather than a material level,,, A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the “fields of consciousness” of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body. http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm To support this view that ‘memory/information’ is not stored in the brain, one of the most common features of extremely deep near death experiences is the ‘life review’ where every minute detail of a person’s life is reviewed: Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/bornagain77_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Implicit in Graham2's questions (gripes) here,,,
Does anyone here have the slightest idea of how a ‘mind’ can work ? When does it appear (conception? birth? 3rd birthday?), when does it die ? Where is it ? (perhaps a little grey cloud above our head?), how does an immaterial mind communicate with our material brain? (telepathy ?, X-rays?). Do cats have a mind ? You lot appear to be remarkably willing to accept this kind of stuff, but equally lacking in curiosity about the obvious things. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mind-over-matter/#comment-442746
,,,is the assumption that the material particles of the brain are sufficient within themselves to explain their own 'eternal' existence within space-time without reference to a prior 'non-local' cause. i.e. Material particles are assumed by materialists to be 'self sustaining'. But materialists are now known to be wrong in this metaphysical assumption of theirs. All the material particles of the universe, including all the material particles of Graham2's brain, are dependent a 'non-local' beyond space and time cause in order to explain their continued existence within space-time. Thus the more appropriate question that Graham2 should have asked is 'what is this beyond space and time (non-local) cause that material particles are dependent on? i.e. why does he even have a brain in the first place for his 'non-local' consciousness to interact with? Quantum Mechanics has now been extended to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it: ‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011 Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm A Quantum Delayed Choice Experiment - June 2012 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.4926v2.pdf Moreover: Another point of interest worth drawing out is that the brain has more switches than all the computers on earth,,,, Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html And computers with many switches have a huge problem with heat,,, Supercomputer architecture Excerpt: Throughout the decades, the management of heat density has remained a key issue for most centralized supercomputers.[4][5][6] The large amount of heat generated by a system may also have other effects, such as reducing the lifetime of other system components.[7] There have been diverse approaches to heat management, from pumping Fluorinert through the system, to a hybrid liquid-air cooling system or air cooling with normal air conditioning temperatures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer_architecture Yet the brain, even though it has as many switches as all the computers on earth, does not have such a problem with heat,,, Appraising the brain’s energy budget: Excerpt: In the average adult human, the brain represents about 2% of the body weight. Remarkably, despite its relatively small size, the brain accounts for about 20% of the oxygen and, hence, calories consumed by the body. This high rate of metabolism is remarkably constant despite widely varying mental and motoric activity. The metabolic activity of the brain is remarkably constant over time. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237.full THE EFFECT OF MENTAL ARITHMETIC ON CEREBRAL CIRCULATION AND METABOLISM Excerpt: Although Lennox considered the performance of mental arithmetic as “mental work”, it is not immediately apparent what the nature of that work in the physical sense might be if, indeed, there be any. If no work or energy transformation is involved in the process of thought, then it is not surprising that cerebral oxygen consumption is unaltered during mental arithmetic. Does Thinking Really Hard Burn More Calories? – By Ferris Jabr – July 2012 Excerpt: So a typical adult human brain runs on around 12 watts—a fifth of the power required by a standard 60 watt lightbulb. Compared with most other organs, the brain is greedy; pitted against man-made electronics, it is astoundingly efficient. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=thinking-hard-calories Moreover, the heat generated by computers is primarily because of the erasure of information,,, Landauer’s principle Of Note: “any logically irreversible manipulation of information, such as the erasure of a bit or the merging of two computation paths, must be accompanied by a corresponding entropy increase ,,, Specifically, each bit of lost information will lead to the release of an (specific) amount (at least kT ln 2) of heat.,,, Landauer’s Principle has also been used as the foundation for a new theory of dark energy, proposed by Gough (2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle Thus the brain is either operating on reversible computation principles no computer can come close to emulating (Charles Bennett), or, as is much more likely, the brain is not erasing information from its memory as the material computer is required to do,, because our memories are stored on the ‘spiritual’ level rather than a material level,,, A Reply to Shermer Medical Evidence for NDEs (Near Death Experiences) – Pim van Lommel Excerpt: For decades, extensive research has been done to localize memories (information) inside the brain, so far without success.,,,,So we need a functioning brain to receive our consciousness into our waking consciousness. And as soon as the function of brain has been lost, like in clinical death or in brain death, with iso-electricity on the EEG, memories and consciousness do still exist, but the reception ability is lost. People can experience their consciousness outside their body, with the possibility of perception out and above their body, with identity, and with heightened awareness, attention, well-structured thought processes, memories and emotions. And they also can experience their consciousness in a dimension where past, present and future exist at the same moment, without time and space, and can be experienced as soon as attention has been directed to it (life review and preview), and even sometimes they come in contact with the “fields of consciousness” of deceased relatives. And later they can experience their conscious return into their body. http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm To support this view that ‘memory/information’ is not stored in the brain, one of the most common features of extremely deep near death experiences is the ‘life review’ where every minute detail of a person’s life is reviewed: Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/bornagain77_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Did timothya really try to play the "regress" card? LoL! Well timothya, natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had. You lose. Nice job, ace.Joe_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Corrected link: Can Information Theory Explain Consciousness? January 2013 John R. Searle (book review) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/jan/10/can-information-theory-explain-consciousness/?pagination=falsebornagain77_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

related note: Can Information Theory Explain Consciousness? January 2013 John R. Searle (book review) http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2012/12/29/john-searle-information-theory-start-agreeing-terminology/ John Searle on information theory: Can we start by agreeing on terminology? Denyse O'Leary http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2012/12/29/john-searle-information-theory-start-agreeing-terminology/bornagain77_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

Breckmin @20 you state:
The order of mathematics exists objectively regardless of our discovering it – another example.
Actually the 'order of mathematics' is shown to be dependent on a cause outside of itself. To be contingent. i.e. Mathematics is shown not to have an independent, objective, or some might even say 'Platonic' existence but a dependent existence! Notes:
Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821 Alan Turing and Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video (notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/ Godel and Physics - John D. Barrow Excerpt (page 5-6): "Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons...fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time." Stanley Jaki - Cosmos and Creator - 1980, pg. 49 http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612253.pdf John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. of note; 'the Word' is translated from the Greek word ‘Logos’. Logos happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word ‘Logic’.
Moreover:
Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - 2010 Excerpt: The Delayed Choice experiment changes the boundary conditions of the Schrodinger equation after the particle enters the first beamsplitter. http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~bob/TermPapers/WheelerDelayed.pdf "Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel" John A. Wheeler
i.e. Why should a mathematical equation even care when I decide to look at a photon? Mathematical equations can't care about anything! Only infinite almighty God can care when or how I should decide to look at any particular photon in the universe! It is also interesting to note that 'higher dimensional' mathematics had to be developed before Einstein could elucidate General Relativity, or even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated;
The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss and Riemann – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/ 3D to 4D shift - Carl Sagan - video with notes Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS1mwEV9wA The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Music:
Sara Groves - The Word - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ofE-GZ8zTU
bornagain77_{January 2, 2013
January
01
Jan
2
02
2013
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed, Even a word-salad is a semiotic system!Mung_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Graham,
Im surprised anyone wasted time on your incoherent word-salad.
My argument is surely wounded by your powerful retort. I suppose I'll be forced to survive on the spectacle of you promoting your ignorance as a line of defense. Actually, we may have reached an agreement after all. Thanks for chiming in.Upright BiPed_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

KN asks: "Where we disagree, it seems to me, is whether the norms that guide inquiry must be utterly transcendent with regards to all worldly experience, or whether they can still serve their role as guiding and regulating our inquiry and conduct even if they too are revised in the course of human experience. I take the latter position, and it seem to me that you take the former. Is that fair?" I hold the logical principles of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle to be objectively existent characteristics of mind. What we revise, IMO, are our descriptions of those characteristics, much as we revise our descriptions of gravity or entropy.William J Murray_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

Graham2:
Upright Biped at 31: Im surprised anyone wasted time on your incoherent word-salad.
Why? You obviously spent enough time on it to make the judgment that it was "incoherent word-salad," why wouldn't numerous others have similarly spent time on it?
Does anyone here have the slightest idea of how a ‘mind’ can work?
What a silly question. How much thought did you put into it?Mung_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped at 31: Im surprised anyone wasted time on your incoherent word-salad.Graham2_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

Does anyone here have the slightest idea of how a 'mind' can work ? When does it appear (conception? birth? 3rd birthday?), when does it die ? Where is it ? (perhaps a little grey cloud above our head?), how does an immaterial mind communicate with our material brain? (telepathy ?, X-rays?). Do cats have a mind ? You lot appear to be remarkably willing to accept this kind of stuff, but equally lacking in curiosity about the obvious things.Graham2_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

In re: William J Murray @ 27:
You’re really going to use, as an authority, the guy who considered matter to be a congealed form of mind, and considered mind to be ubiquitous as a universal commodity, as an authority to prosecute against the argument that mind must be held as ontologically and methodologically primary?
Actually, I like a lot of Peirce's metaphysics. I don't fully share his panpsychism but I can see why he accepted it, and something like that makes sense to me. Where I would disagree with Peirce, and side more with Dewey, is that I think that there are somewhat sharper "plateaus" or semi-discontinuities -- I wouldn't read "mind", in the full-blooded sense, all the way back into "matter as such" (whatever that is!), but I do think that mind, in a somewhat less than full-blooded sense, is deeply rooted in the nature of life as such. I have no problem with the view that grass, mushrooms, or even bacteria display a very rudimentary kind of mindedness. And I do think, also, that the properties of life are deeply rooted in the very structure of matter. That's part of what I meant when I said that there's no ontological gulf between mind and world -- there's no ontological gulf because mind is a feature of life, and life is a product of the universe. Indeed, I think that something like Peirce's notion of "evolutionary love" anticipates self-organization theory. Nor do I have any quarrel with his defense of final causes or the reality of form. I keep on trying to say that I'm not a materialist, but a pragmatist, but for some reason no one here believes me. All I can say is, I'm trying. Another point about Peirce (and about pragmatism in particular) that is quite important to me is his rejection of Cartesian epistemology and the Cartesian conception of mind. Now, if one insists the the conception of mind as a private, individualistic, self-enclosed sphere of being, with problematic and at best inferential relations to anything outside of it, is the only conception of mind that there is -- that that's just what mindedness is -- then, yes, there will be quite profound disagreements between us. But my rejecting that specific conception of mindedness does not make me an Epicurean reductive materialist.
I’m not really sure what case you’re attempting to make via the quote you used. Are you trying to claim that logic is a flawed means of discerning true statements? I suppose you would have to hold that position, since logic, and individual, and world, are all cut from the same error-producing material under your view.
I'm trying to claim that reasoning-in-use is fallible-but-corrigible, that as inquiry proceeds we not only arrive at better knowledge of states of affairs, but also better principles by which to guide our inquiry.
If you hold that logic is a flawed means of determining the truth value of a statement, there’s no reason to debate other than as monkeys flinging rhetorical (and metaphorical) feces at each other. No sense trying to measure something with a ruler you know to be flawed, and for which you know you have no means of substantively correcting.
I would think, on the contrary, that our conceptual schemata are 'corrected' by how well they are borne out by experience, and that it is in and through our experience that the world gets a vote, so to speak, in what we say about it. (But do you really think that monkeys do not reason? We know that they are remarkably intelligent in many ways. Frans de Waal, a primatologist at Emory, has argued that the capuchin monkeys he studies actually have an implicit sense of fairness. I find this quite fascinating.) Where we disagree, it seems to me, is whether the norms that guide inquiry must be utterly transcendent with regards to all worldly experience, or whether they can still serve their role as guiding and regulating our inquiry and conduct even if they too are revised in the course of human experience. I take the latter position, and it seem to me that you take the former. Is that fair?Kantian Naturalist_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

It is my sincere goal in life to go beyond the one liner. To the two liner.Mung_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Alan, A pack of relinquished materialists, patting themselves on the back for the snappiest soundbite (after six threads of trying to demonstate a flaw) is hardly sufficient for your purposes. Unless of course your pusposes are merely to portray a stiff upper lip. You are certainly well-suited to that creed. Just imagine how much more convicing the lot of you would be if you could simply articulate the flaw. Your best bet at this point is to appear unconvinced... and toss out one-liners.Upright BiPed_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

The title of this thread "Mind Over Matter" reminds me of this video: The following video was surprisingly impressive to me in its experimental evidence for the mind: The Mind Is Not The Brain - Scientific Evidence - Rupert Sheldrake - (Referenced Notes) - video http://vimeo.com/33479544 In the preceding video Rupert Sheldrake talks of a internet site that he has set up, especially for the skeptics, with specific instructions so anyone who is skeptical can do the experiments for themselves and see the results firsthand: Here is that online site: Online Tests Excerpt: Rupert Sheldrake invites you to participate in his ongoing research. No previous experience is necessary, and the online tests can be done immediately. Most of these experiments are suitable for use in schools and colleges, and some make an excellent basis for student projects. http://www.sheldrake.org/Onlineexp/portal/index.html Related notes: Study suggests precognition may be possible - November 2010 Excerpt: A Cornell University scientist has demonstrated that psi anomalies, more commonly known as precognition, premonitions or extra-sensory perception (ESP), really do exist at a statistically significant level. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-precognition.html This following experiment is really interesting: Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter - Random Number Generators - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198007 Here are some of the papers to go with the preceding video; Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research - Scientific Study of Consciousness-Related Physical Phenomena - publications http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program - 1997 http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1997-correlations-random-binary-sequences-12-year-review.pdf The Global Consciousness Project - Meaningful Correlations in Random Data http://teilhard.global-mind.org/ I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiments, "Since you ultimately believe that the 'god of random chance' produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?"bornagain77_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

timothya said: "On the other hand, scientific evidence for supernatural causes, proximate or ultimate, remains. . . zero." Please support your assertion that there is zero scientific evidence for supernatural causes.William J Murray_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Mr. Fox, do you have anything to add to the conversation? Besides sneers and scoffs I mean.Barry Arrington_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

KN: You're really going to use, as an authority, the guy who considered matter to be a congealed form of mind, and considered mind to be ubiquitous as a universal commodity, as an authority to prosecute against the argument that mind must be held as ontologically and methodologically primary? From Stanford.edu: "This pan-psychistic view, combined with his synechism, meant for Peirce that mind is extended in some sort of continuum throughout the universe. Peirce tended to think of ideas as existing in mind in somewhat the same way as physical forms exist in physically extended things. He even spoke of ideas as “spreading” out through the same continuum in which mind is extended. This set of conceptions is part of what Peirce regarded as (his own version of) Scotistic realism, which he sharply contrasted with nominalism. He tended to blame what he regarded as the errors of much of the philosophy of his contemporaries as owing to its nominalistic disregard for the objective existence of form." I'm not really sure what case you're attempting to make via the quote you used. Are you trying to claim that logic is a flawed means of discerning true statements? I suppose you would have to hold that position, since logic, and individual, and world, are all cut from the same error-producing material under your view. If you hold that logic is a flawed means of determining the truth value of a statement, there's no reason to debate other than as monkeys flinging rhetorical (and metaphorical) feces at each other. No sense trying to measure something with a ruler you know to be flawed, and for which you know you have no means of substantively correcting.William J Murray_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

In any philosophy of reality that is not ultimately self-defeating or internally contradictory, mind – unlabeled as anything else, matter or spiritual – must be primary. What is “matter” and what is “conceptual” and what is “spiritual” can only be organized from mind. Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized. Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer, the uncaused cause simply to avoid a self-negating, self-conflicting worldview. It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first. To say anything else comes first requires mind to consider and argue that case and then believe it to be true, demonstrating that without mind, you could not believe that mind is not primary in the first place.
This bit of text neatly illustrates why philosophy has become a minority pursuit!Alan Fox_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

You’ve been given material evidence that you cannot refute.
Join the club, timothya! SemioticsAlan Fox_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

@ W.J.Murray
W.J.Murray: "Mind must be postulated as the unobserved observer (...)"
What do you mean by 'unobserved observer'? Are you saying that the mind must regard itself as being distinct from what it observes; the mind has an outside perspective by definition? If so, there is an exception to this rule, because one of the extraordinary aspects of mind is that it observes itself.
W.J.Murray: "Mind must be postulated as the (…) uncaused cause (…)"
Are you referring to your own mind? I’m sure you do when you write: “Mind controls what is perceived, how it is perceived, and how those percepts are labeled and organized”. You are not talking about mind in general or God’s mind. I think you must be referring to your own mind. And I agree with you. The nature of (my) mind is freedom. And freedom can only create itself, or else it won’t be freedom. (My) mind is a whole and a whole can only create itself, or else it won’t be a whole.
W.J.Murray: "It is the necessary postulate of all necessary postulates, because nothing else can come first."
So my mind is its own cause.Box_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Tim,
UB: Its funny that you should say this, given that the infinite regress is an issue in origins only if materialism is assumed to be true. So much for unexamined assuptions. Tim: Fortunate we are that science makes no such assumption.
If the assumption is not made, there there is no infinte regress, and consequently you had no basis for your comment at #3. I suppose you can counsel yourself as to why you made a comment based on making the assumption in #3, only to retract that assumption in #22.
Tim: On the other hand, scientific evidence for supernatural causes, proximate or ultimate, remains. . . zero.
You've been given material evidence that you cannot refute. The issue becomes how one equivocates on the question: "what counts as evidence"? In understanding this predicament, perhaps we can gain insight from a materialist who staunchly believes that Life originated from unguided processes, but also knows that the demonstrable evidence for that remains, as you say, "zero". Yet he turns to the design proponent who holds evidence he cannot refute and simply says "You have no evidence".Upright BiPed_{January 1, 2013
January
01
Jan
1
01
2013
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply