Intelligent Design

Outlining A Functional Mental Reality Theory

Spread the love

By accepting the fundamental, unequivocal logical fact that our experiential existence is necessarily, entirely mental in nature, and accepting the unambiguous scientific evidence that supports this view, we can move on to the task of developing a functioning and useful theory of mental reality. I will attempt to roughly outline such a theory here, with the caveat that trying to express such a theory in language that is thoroughly steeped in external, physical world ideology is at best difficult. Another caveat would be that, even though the categorical nature of the theory probably cannot be disproved (mental reality would account for all possible experiences,) some models might prove more useful and thus be better models.

IMO, the phrase “we live in a mental reality,” once properly understood, is realized as a self-evident truth. Self-evident truths cannot be “disproved.”

For any particular theory to even get off the ground, there must be a structure that can organize it into something comprehensible, testable (for usefulness), and which corresponds to current experience while making predictions and retrodictions.

There are at least two indisputable structures to mind and how it generates experience; logic and mathematics. These may be two different ways of expressing the same universal principle of mind. In this model, this “mathlogical” principle is that which takes a set of information and processes it into experience. I’m going to simplify the term and say it this way: experience is the algorithmic expression of a data set.

The data set that the algorithm processes can be roughly stated as that set of data which represents the mental structures we identify as individuals. No two individuals are comprised by the exact same identity set or they would be the same person, which follows the logical principle of identity.

And so, no two people experience the same exact thing even though the algorithm follows the same rules for expression. Two individuals can be connect to the some or even much of the same data, but not all of it. Note: there are infinite varieties of data sets because there is infinite information available that can be arranged an infinite number of ways.

Innumerable individuals can have included in their individual data sets large blocks of arranged information which they are, essentially, sharing. The algorithmic expression of such data blocks, even with innumerable individual variances of data not contained in the shared data block, could result in what we observe as a shared, external, physical world. In fact, it may be that the “external physical world” is a data block that acts as filtering information that other individual information is processed through – at least to a large degree.

And so, we experience what seems to be a consistent, shared “world” that is governed by logic and math. However, the model is fundamentally incomplete unless we bring in another fundamental quality of experience: free will.

In this model, free will is precisely defined as the capacity to unilaterally, free of both the data and the algorithmic process, direct one’s attention. It is absolutely free and unfettered, and as such it is also ineffable. Free will represents a single variable in the algorithm. Although this variable cannot change the principles by which the algorithm processes the data into experience, the variable establishes what information is included in the data set the algorithm is procedurally processing into experience.

Usually, people use their free will capacity in no other way than to provide an experience-sustaining feedback loop. We focus our attention on the current expression of the data set and largely limit our attention to that which is logically implied by what the algorithm is already producing. We’re usually trapped in our own feedback loop because we identify with the algorithmic expression we experience as the very definition of what is real. Oddly, as a result of confusing cause and effect, we erroneously think that our experience is caused by what we experience, when that can’t possibly be the case. It’s logically absurd.

In this model, we actually have the free will capacity to put our attention on any information, even if it is “outside” of our current identity data set and outside of what we’re experiencing as “shared physical reality.” We can set this variable of the algorithm to refer back to any information we want out of infinite information available. We call this capacity our “imagination.”

Boom! Mental reality without a trace of solipsism.

34 Replies to “Outlining A Functional Mental Reality Theory

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Some sort of mental reality is certainly possible but if you unmoor our conscious experience from any external reality then why do we experience anything at all and what can it be other than a fantasy?

    If there is no external reality then all the weird and wonderful phenomena of the quantum level of external reality are just fantasies. The nature of entangled particle pairs and any apparent research into them are meaningless because neither photons nor entanglement exist at all.

    This would also be true of our memories of the past. How could we know if any of it happened or whether we came into existence last Thursday with an apparently complete set of entirely fictional memories?

    In fact, while it is fun to play around with such concepts, if it were true it would make the entire human explanatory enterprise – philosophy, science, religion, logic mathematics – pointless. There is nothing to explain. Beyond what am I and why am I experiencing what I am experiencing, that is.

  2. 2
    JohnB says:

    Intertwined thoughts are the only reality. We choose our reality by choosing what thought(s) to believe. There are 2 primordial thoughts : a very intelligent God or a very intelligent chaos. ? Chaos(blind natural laws) don’t produce thoughts because thoughts are not matter so an intelligent human being would believe in the right primordial thought.

  3. 3

    Seversky said:

    Some sort of mental reality is certainly possible but if you unmoor our conscious experience from any external reality then why do we experience anything at all and what can it be other than a fantasy?

    I explained what we are experiencing. The word “fantasy” only has meaning in an external-reality perspective.

    The nature of entangled particle pairs and any apparent research into them are meaningless because neither photons nor entanglement exist at all.

    They exist as experiences, which is all we have of “reality” in any event, under any model. Any “meaning” for any experiential pursuit is a quality of individual experience.

    This would also be true of our memories of the past. How could we know if any of it happened or whether we came into existence last Thursday with an apparently complete set of entirely fictional memories?

    Memories, in mental reality theory, are not what they are in current external reality theory. Regardless of theory, the only “time” you actually exist is “now,” and certain kinds of mental qualia, regardless of theory, serve to orient the individual within their experience.

    In fact, while it is fun to play around with such concepts, if it were true it would make the entire human explanatory enterprise – philosophy, science, religion, logic mathematics – pointless. There is nothing to explain. Beyond what am I and why am I experiencing what I am experiencing, that is.

    Well, if you mean there’s nothing left to explain, at least on an existential and “how existence works” level, I agree. This theory explains everything. You’re welcome.

  4. 4
    Truthfreedom says:

    1 Seversky

    but if you unmoor our conscious experience from any external reality

    Lololol! What are you talking about, delusional kiddo? Your materialist superstition collapses into subjective idealism.

    Naturalism’s Epistemological Nightmare

    “Empirical verification presupposes epistemological realism—meaning that through sensation we know directly the exterior physical world around us. Natural science proclaims that it discovers the nature of the real physical cosmos, external to our brains or subjective selves. Yet, when we trace the optics and physiology of the sense of sight, we find ourselves entrapped in epistemological idealism — meaning that we do not know external reality, but rather merely some change within our brains that we hope to be an accurate representation of the external world.”
    Dr. Dennis Bonnette.
    https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/

    ___

    In fact, while it is fun to play around with such concepts,

    Coming from an evo/ materialist whose weird ideology leads to global skepticism.

    Naturalism’s Global Skepticism Plantinga’s EAAN

    In this dissertation, I explicate and defend Plantinga’s attack on philosophical
    naturalism. My thesis is that it has survived all the current attacks available in the literature.

    You are a joke.

  5. 5
    Fasteddious says:

    If “our experiential existence is necessarily, entirely mental in nature”, then how can, “the unambiguous scientific evidence” support that view? ALL the scientific evidence is obtained using equipment and experimental setups that assume and utilize matter and energy. Using science based on matter and energy and the assumption of an external physical world to “prove” that matter does not exist and that the only reality is mental does not seem like a promising approach to “proving” idealism. If no external material reality exists, then why base metaphysical or philosophical arguments on the basis of material evidence that assumes realism?

  6. 6
    Querius says:

    Fasteddious,

    You might want to look into the numerous scientific experiments affirming superposition, the collapse of the wave function, entanglement, the quantum zeno effect, and quantum erasure. There’s tons of scientific evidence.

    The experimental results are considered incontrovertible, but the interpretations on what these results mean with regard to reality are confusing, shocking, and wildly controversial.

    -Q

  7. 7
    Circadian says:

    ‘Moored’ and ‘unmoored’ are metaphorical expressions. And what kind of reality do metaphorical expressions possess? Why, semantic. Which again is a product of mind.

    Naturalism simply assumes the primacy of the objective. When pressed, it then tries to present objective reasons for this assumption – which is another way of stating the infinite regress at its basis,

  8. 8

    Fasteddious @4:

    If “our experiential existence is necessarily, entirely mental in nature”, then how can, “the unambiguous scientific evidence” support that view? ALL the scientific evidence is obtained using equipment and experimental setups that assume and utilize matter and energy.

    Not sure I understand your question. In the theory, there is no matter or energy, only mental phenomena we experience as such. The equipment are mental constructs. Our very bodies are mental constructs. The reason the quantum results come back the way they do is because they are not actually experimenting on or with physical things. We’re actually conducting mental tests on the nature of our experiences, even if we assume we are not. There’s nothing else to conduct a test on or with.

    Using science based on matter and energy and the assumption of an external physical world to “prove” that matter does not exist and that the only reality is mental does not seem like a promising approach to “proving” idealism. If no external material reality exists, then why base metaphysical or philosophical arguments on the basis of material evidence that assumes realism?

    First, there’s no such thing as “material evidence” because it is a logical and a practical impossibility. Second, it doesn’t matter what you assume you are investigating; under mental reality theory, the only thing you can actually be investigating is the nature of mental experience. All evidence gathered under any paradigm necessarily would support a well-made mental reality theory, because all evidential processes and facts are experienced in mind.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    By the death of a thousand quantum cuts, Materialism is dead,

    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE

    And since Darwinian evolution is based on the presupposition of reductive materialism, (where it is assumed, without any evidential basis I might add, that both information and consciousness are somehow ’emergent’ from some material basis), then the death of materialism, of course, necessarily entails the death of Darwinian evolution itself.

    In regards to quantum mechanics, Steven Weinberg, an atheist, put the irresolvable problem for Darwinian explanations like this, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because, via their free will choices, “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and precisely because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within.

    The existence of free will is simply completely incompatible with Darwinian materialism. In fact, although we all experience free will first hand, Darwinists deny the existence of free will. That is to say that Darwinists deny what we all know to be true from our first hand experience.

    As militant Darwinist Jerry Coyne stated, “Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.”

    THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL – Sam Harris – 2012
    Excerpt: “Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.”
    – Jerry Coyne
    https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/

    The claim that free will is an illusion is simply insane. Besides denying the reality of what we all know to be true from our first hand experience, the denial of free will also necessarily undermines any claim the Darwinist may make that he is reasoning in a rational coherent manner in the first place.

    As Martin Cothran pointed out, “The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.”

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    And it is exactly this ‘perspective outside the physical order’ that lies outside the purview of Darwinian explanations and which undermines any claim the Darwinist may make that he reasoning in a rationally coherent fashion in the first place.

    As Jerry Coyne further explained,

    “Your decisions result from molecular-based electrical impulses and chemical substances transmitted from one brain cell to another. These molecules must obey the laws of physics, so the outputs of our brain—our “choices”—are dictated by those laws.”
    Jerry Coyne
    https://www.chronicle.com/article/Jerry-A-Coyne-You-Dont-Have/131165

    Yet, regardless of how Jerry Coyne, Steven Weinberg, and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    Although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm

    And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of approx. 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Thus regardless of how Jerry Coyne, Steven Weinberg, and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are (indeed) brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself pointed out, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover allowing free will and/or Agent causality into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level has some fairly profound implications for us personally.

    First and foremost, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:

    September 2020 – despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-edition-of-inference-review-features-richard-buggs-james-shapiro-and-larry-krauss/#comment-713367

    (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,,
    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178

    The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019
    What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault
    https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

    To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://westvirginianews.blogsp.....in-is.html

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Besides the empirical verification of ‘free will’ and/or Agent causality within quantum theory bringing that rather startling solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’, there is, to put it mildly, also another fairly drastic implication for individual people being “brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” as well.

    Although free will is often thought of as allowing someone to choose between a veritable infinity of options,,,

    Scientists build a machine to generate quantum superposition of possible futures – APRIL 9, 2019
    Excerpt: “When we think about the future, we are confronted by a vast array of possibilities,” explains Assistant Professor Mile Gu of NTU Singapore, who led development of the quantum algorithm that underpins the prototype “These possibilities grow exponentially as we go deeper into the future. For instance, even if we have only two possibilities to choose from each minute, in less than half an hour there are 14 million possible futures. In less than a day, the number exceeds the number of atoms in the universe.” What he and his research group realised, however, was that a quantum computer can examine all possible futures by placing them in a quantum superposition – similar to Schrödinger’s famous cat, which is simultaneously alive and dead.
    To realise this scheme, they joined forces with the experimental group led by Professor Geoff Pryde at Griffith University. Together, the team implemented a specially devised photonic quantum information processor in which the potential future outcomes of a decision process are represented by the locations of photons – quantum particles of light. They then demonstrated that the state of the quantum device was a superposition of multiple potential futures, weighted by their probability of occurrence.
    “The functioning of this device is inspired by the Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman,” says Dr. Jayne Thompson, a member of the Singapore team. “When Feynman started studying quantum physics, he realized that when a particle travels from point A to point B, it does not necessarily follow a single path. Instead, it simultaneously transverses all possible paths connecting the points. Our work extends this phenomenon and harnesses it for modelling statistical futures.”
    https://phys.org/news/2019-04-scientists-machine-quantum-superposition-futures.html

    ,,, although free will is often thought of as allowing someone to choose between a veritable infinity of options, in a theistic view of reality that veritable infinity of options all boils down to just two options. Eternal life with God, or Eternal life without God.

    C.S. Lewis stated the situation for people as such: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.”

    “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.”
    – C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

    Moreover, in order to support the physical reality of heaven and hell, I can appeal directly to two of our most powerful and precisely tested theories ever in the history of science. Special Relativity and General Relativity respectfully.

    September 2020 – “Where this gets interesting is that, whereas atheists have no experimental evidence supporting their unfounded conjectures for multiverses, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, (i.e. our most precisely tested theories ever in the history of science), to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicists-life-forms-could-flourish-in-the-interior-of-stars/#comment-711489

    Moreover, and on top of all that, (as impressive as that confirmation of a basic Christian presupposition is), I can also appeal to advances in quantum biology to, number one, further undermine the materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution, and to, number two, support the physical reality of a immaterial soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies.

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    The interesting thing about finding quantum information to be ubiquitous within living organisms is that quantum information, like quantum entanglement itself, requires a ‘non-local’, i.e. beyond space and time, cause in order to explain it. As the following article noted, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Moreover, it is also important to realize that quantum information is conserved. As the following article states, “In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.”

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
    That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark)
    https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604

    Verse:

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Of somewhat related interest, I have not watched it yet, but Inspiring Philosophy has just recently uploaded the fifth and final video from his ‘Irreducible Mind’ series,

    Near Death Experiences: Irreducible Mind (Part 5)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnTVPCwPjhI

    Here is the video playlist of all 5 of his videos in his ‘Irreducible Mind’ series

    Irreducible Mind, – 5 part video series
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOFGKhvWQ4M&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUjEbz4zD0i_rfGiyB4AGQa

  13. 13
    Truthfreedom says:

    9 Bornagain77

    By the death of a thousand quantum cuts, Materialism is dead.

    R.I.P. materialism. You won’t be missed.
    Bye-bye, arrivederci, hasta nunca. 🙂

    Materialism’s Evident Falsity

  14. 14

    BA77,

    The mental reality theory I’ve outlined completely allows for the the life/afterlife spiritual/religious experiential architecture you’ve described, including heaven and hell. Fortunately for everyone else, it allows for every possible experiential architecture, not just religious/spiritual versions. Mental reality theory also predicts one can experience all sorts of evidence that supports their belief in any particular architecture.

    Unless one can demonstrate that their particular architecture is the only one logically possible under the mental reality premise, then there is no significant reason that there cannot be other experiences which do not correspond to the “heaven/hell” paradigm.

  15. 15

    All spiritual and religious doctrines that I am aware of are, IMO, at their core, expressions of materialism. in that an objective, external reality exists which arbitrarily enforces a strict limitation to experiential possibilities.

    Under mental reality theory, one might argue that the only experiential possibilities available are those which conform to a particular theological or spiritual perspective, but one would have to make the case why that particular limitation is a necessary commodity for all identities being translated into experience.

  16. 16
    EDTA says:

    Trying to get my head around this (metaphorically speaking). (Should I say that my algorithm + data finds this stimulating?)

    So why does my algorithm seem to need a thrice-daily input of the data that represents “food”? What caused that apparent requirement? Me or something outside of me?

    How can I test your idea? Is there something I can do to cause an unexpected result or thought to occur?

    What caused our existence to be structured in this way?

    Thanks.

  17. 17
    JohnB says:

    Incompleteness (of Godel) is true in all systems including in mental reality . Information from outside the system are required to understand(objective) the system.

    Human imagination is “helping” only to create multiple false realities.
    “Revelation”(information from “outside” and “off limit” for human experience ) is only way to access The Reality because humans are actors not creators of this universe/system.
    “Free will ” become really free only after integration of “Revelation” as starting point for Reality .
    You can’t access Reality without informations from outside the “human system” , those informations can be integrated only by “believing” aka faith aka religion .
    Which religion? Only One of all religions… but this is another discussion.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    William J Murray at 14, and observational evidence counts for what in your worldview? If it counts for nought then your worldview is, for all intents and purposes, worthless as far a observational science is concerned.

    Whereas, on the other hand, in my posts I’ve appealed to the most powerful theories in science to support the Christian worldview.

    In short, as we have discussed before, you have a rather glaring hole in your theory.

  19. 19

    EDTA @ 17:
    Nothing caused our existence to be structured this way. It’s just the nature of identity in mind. As for the particulars of what you might call your mortal existence, you chose this kind of existence by the nature of your identity. IMO and according to various information, there are many other kinds of experiences to have.

    To work with the model, you do it by placing your attention on something. In my experience, it works best when you have emotional investment in whatever you are placing your attention on. You can focus on something you’re already experiencing to tune the algorithm into developing more of that, or your can focus on something in your imagination that generates the kind of sensation you want to experience more of.

    In my experience (and in the experience of many others,) you should start seeing the effects as the algorithm begins the work. Keep in mind that the algorithm has to work with all of your other identity characteristics as well. It can be a lot of fun. It can also cause some changes that you feel resistant to, especially if you’re trying to move something new into your experience.

  20. 20

    Bornagain77,]
    I can see why you think it would be worthless to you because there would be no way to assert a particular experiential architecture as that which is true for everyone. I can see why you would think that all the evidence you have supporting your beliefs represent a “hole” in my theory, but it in fact does not from the perspective of the theory itself. To put a hole in the theory, you have to do so from inside the theory, explaining how it is internally inconsistent or problematic. In mental reality theory, there can be supporting evidence for all sorts of experiential architectures.

    Since you did not attempt a logical argument that your Christian doctrine is necessarily the only possible experiential architecture an individual could access, I’m assuming you can’t make that argument. Without that, the Christian experience would just be one of an infinite variety of experiential patterns one could experience in mind.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM, back in the 1800’s, a eccentric man in San Francisco declared himself “Emperor of the United States”.

    Emperor Norton
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton

    WJM, my question for you is, since you have apparently forsaken observational evidence, how would you go about trying to convince him otherwise?

    Of note: You claimed I did not make a logical argument for Christianity. I don’t know what subjective, and in this case imaginary, reality you have constructed in your own mind, but my posts on this very thread, particularly post 10, is ‘observational evidence’ that directly refutes your claim that I did not make a logical argument for Christianity.

    For crying out loud, I specifically made a ‘inductive logical’ argument for Christianity by appealing to our most powerful theories in science and by arguing that Christ’s resurrection from the dead, (unlike string theory, etc..), provides a very plausible solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

  22. 22

    BA77:

    WJM, my question for you is, since you have apparently forsaken observational evidence, how would you go about trying to convince him otherwise?

    (1) I haven’t forsaken observational evidence. I just evaluate it through a different perspective. ALL evidence is interpreted through a filtering paradigm.

    (2) Why would I try to convince the man otherwise?

    Of note: You claimed I did not make a logical argument for Christianity.

    That’s not what I claimed at all. There are several good, logical arguments for Christianity. Those are not the argument I asked for. Just because there are good, logical arguments for a thing doesn’t mean that thing is true. Also, logical arguments that specifically extend from an external-reality interpretation of evidence simply do not apply to mental reality theory. It’s like judging a basketball game using logic based on watching a baseball game.

    I don’t know what subjective, and in this case imaginary, reality you have constructed in your own mind, but my posts on this very thread, particularly post 10, is ‘observational evidence’ that directly refutes your claim that I did not make a logical argument for Christianity.

    Only I didn’t make that claim. I said you didn’t make an attempt at the specific logical argument I asked for.

    For crying out loud, I specifically made a ‘inductive logical’ argument for Christianity by appealing to our most powerful theories in science and by arguing that Christ’s resurrection from the dead, (unlike string theory, etc..), provides a very plausible solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

    And those are very good arguments. I’ve enjoyed reading them every time you make them. However, they are not the argument I asked for. The argument I asked for was one that showed that the Christian perspective was the only possible experiential architecture one could experience. I didn’t ask for an argument that you felt made it the most likely.

    I agree that the Christian heaven and hell exist, but only as two of infinite available “dimensions” of mental experience. I agree with everything you said about the Shroud of Turin. Quite a miraculous event, but it is not evidence that Christian cosmology is the only possible experiential architecture one can experience.

    Maybe I missed something, but mental reality theory accounts for the existence of all the evidence you’ve provided. There isn’t any of that which anyone experienced outside of their mind. The only way you can make a meaningful argument for Christianity being the only available experiential mental architecture would be to show that it is logically necessary that it be the only one that any consciousness can possibly experience. Arguing that there is evidence that it just exists isn’t enough.

    Thinking that everyone must be a part of a single experiential architecture set is a remnant of external, objective, materialism.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM,

    (1) I haven’t forsaken observational evidence. I just evaluate it through a different perspective. ALL evidence is interpreted through a filtering paradigm.

    In your theory, you simply have reduced the importance of observational evidence to the point that it is meaningless. Again, as far as science itself is concerned, that renders your theory worthless as far as science is concerned.

    (2) Why would I try to convince the man otherwise?

    Duh, it is a false view of reality. And, more importantly, to prove that your theory can properly differentiate between false views of reality and true views of reality.

    You then claim that I must prove that ‘your Christian doctrine is necessarily the only possible experiential architecture an individual could access’, and then you claim ‘I’m assuming you can’t make that argument.’

    For crying out loud, I would NEVER make such a preposterous argument.

    As my example of the ‘Emperor of the United States’ pointed out, people can construct all sorts of false views of reality in their own minds. Reference to the external world, i.e. observational evidence, is absolutely necessary to try to correct his view, (and even then a person can refuse to accept evidence against the mental reality they have constructed in their own mind, as Darwinists constantly refuse to accept evidence against their worldview right here on UD)

    That is a fatal flaw for you. Reference to the ‘outside world’ i.e. Observational evidence in necessary to properly differentiate between an infinite variety of false ‘mental’ views of reality and the true Christian view of reality.

    Of note:

    “If you were to take Mohammed out of Islam, and Buddha out of Buddhism, and Confucius out of Confucianism you would still have a faith system that was relatively in tact. However, taking Christ out of Christianity sinks the whole faith completely. This is because Jesus centred the faith on himself. He said, “This is what it means to have eternal life: to know God the Father and Jesus Christ whom the Father sent” (John 17:3). “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). Buddha, before dying, said in effect, “I am still seeking for the truth.” Mohammed said in effect, “I point you to the truth.” Jesus said, “I am the truth.” Jesus claimed to not only give the truth, but to be the very personal embodiment of it.”
    http://commonground.co.za/?res.....way-to-god

  24. 24

    BA77:

    In your theory, you simply have reduced the importance of observational evidence to the point that it is meaningless. Again, as far as science itself is concerned, that renders your theory worthless as far as science is concerned.

    I can see why you think that from your perspective. From my perspective, this isn’t true at all. Observational evidence is very important, just not in the way it is important to you under your model.

    That is a fatal flaw for you. Reference to the ‘outside world’ i.e. Observational evidence in necessary to properly differentiate between an infinite variety of false ‘mental’ views of reality and the true Christian view of reality.

    Until you can show how it is an internal “fatal flaw,” you haven’t demonstrated it to be a flaw at all. Again, you might as well be saying that the “fatal flaw” of basketball is that it doesn’t have bases or a bat. Your argument is, essentially, that mental reality’s “fatal flaw” is that it is not compatible with external reality theory. That’s not something you even need to argue.

    Here’s an actual “fatal flaw” for external reality theory because it represents an internal, unbridgable problem: You can’t ever actually experience any supposed external world, period, full stop. Therefore, nothing you say about “observational evidence” from the “external world” has any potentially verifiable validity whatsoever. What you imagine about the “outside world” is factually, necessarily, all “in your head” anyway. That’s an existential fact that is self-evidently true.

    The only potential difference between you and the guy on the street in your example is that in your mind, you have more people agreeing with you than he does. And even so, you have no idea how many people are agreeing with him in his mind. In his mind, you’re probably the crazy one – if he even notices you at all.

    Duh, it is a false view of reality. And, more importantly, to prove that your theory can properly differentiate between false views of reality and true views of reality.

    More argument that pre-assumes the validity of the external-world hypothesis. You’re arguing your case from your external-world material reality perspective. It’s inapplicable when attempting to evaluate my mental reality theory.

    For crying out loud, I would NEVER make such a preposterous argument.

    Well, I don’t know that it would be “preposterous,” but at least we have settled this much: you’re not making the argument I asked for.

  25. 25

    BA77,
    Has it occurred to you that my mental reality theory is actually, itself, a description of what “objective reality” is?

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM, you still have not demonstrated how you can convince the ’emperor of the United States’ that he is not the emperor without referencing the ‘outside’ world.

    I am not playing semantics. I honestly want to know how you would go about trying to convince him of the truth in your ‘mental model’.

  27. 27
    JohnB says:

    “There are at least two indisputable structures to mind and how it generates experience; logic and mathematics.”

    Well…unfortunarely for your theory first indisputable structure of mind is duplicity ,logic and mathematics are both on last place.

    About the truth of Christianity I think one observation is obvious : not being invented by humans is hated by everyone .? Some won’t hate it forever and became christians.
    As we see reason don’t help us to find the truth in “mental reality” because reason was perverted and nobody can deny that.

  28. 28

    BA77 asks,

    WJM, you still have not demonstrated how you can convince the ’emperor of the United States’ that he is not the emperor without referencing the ‘outside’ world.

    I am not playing semantics. I honestly want to know how you would go about trying to convince him of the truth in your ‘mental model’.

    Your question is directly analogous to the following:

    I’m trying to explain basketball to you. You’re a baseball fan. You ask me, “Okay, but how does the pitcher in basketball alter his throws in order to make it less likely that that batter will get a hit?” None of that question even makes sense. It’s frame of reference is from an entirely different game.

    The best answer I can give you given our two entirely different perspectives is this: trying to change other people’s minds is an exercise in absurd futility. The only mind I can change is my own.

  29. 29
    JohnB says:

    Yep…because logic and mathematic are on last place

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM,

    trying to change other people’s minds is an exercise in absurd futility.

    Interesting claim seeing that many minds have been changed by pointing people to scientific evidence.

    For instance, almost everyone thought that physics was all but sewn up, then along came Einstein, Planck, Heinsenberg, and Schroedinger and all of physics was practically turned on its head.

    In order to ‘change everyone’s mind’, these men referenced observational evidence that was outside of any logical or mathematical argument they made.

    So for you to claim that trying to change other people’s minds is ‘absurd futility’ simply is not true.

    And again, if observational evidence means so little in your ‘mental theory’ so that changing minds is an exercise in ‘absurd futility’, then your theory is, for all intents and purposes, useless as far as empirical science is concerned.

  31. 31

    BA77,

    In every event you have any knowlege of, in any way, of people changing their minds, where did you experience every bit of those events? IOW, if you experience arguing with someone, and that person at some point says to you, “OMG, you’ve changed my mind,” where did you experience the argument and that person saying what they did?” If their behavior changed after the argument, where did you experience that?

    Trying to change other people’s minds is an exercise in absurd futility. The only mind I can change is my own.

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM repeats his claim that “Trying to change other people’s minds is an exercise in absurd futility”,

    According to WJM’s logic, since UD itself exists to, hopefully, change minds in regards to Intelligent design, I guess we should all leave UD??? Furthermore, I guess WJM himself should stop trying persuade us that his theory is logically coherent?

    To push his claim even further, I guess jury trials should all cease since trying to change other people’s minds is an exercise in absurd futility???

    I guess I will take WJM’s advice in at least one instance and stop trying to convince WJM himself that his mental theory is useless as far as empirical science is concerned. It is clear that that is an exercise in ‘absurd futility’ since WJM has, apparently, fallen in love with his own theory to the point of denying the central importance of ‘outside’ empirical evidence in trying to persuade someone to ‘change their mind’.

  33. 33

    BA77,

    According to WJM’s logic, since UD itself exists to, hopefully, change minds in regards to Intelligent design, I guess we should all leave UD??? Furthermore, I guess WJM himself should stop trying persuade us that his theory is logically coherent?

    It is entirely understandable that you interpret and respond to what I say and my ideas from the external world paradigm. “Persuading others” by debate or argument is an external-reality perspective. That may be what you are trying to do here, but it is not what I am doing.

    To push his claim even further, I guess jury trials should all cease since trying to change other people’s minds is an exercise in absurd futility???

    What other people should or should not do doesn’t even factor into my mental processes. I only ask, “what do I want to experience, and what should I put my attention on in order to facilitate that experience?”

    I guess I will take WJM’s advice in at least one instance and stop trying to convince WJM himself that his mental theory is useless as far as empirical science is concerned. It is clear that that is an exercise in ‘absurd futility’ since WJM has, apparently, fallen in love with his own theory to the point of denying the central importance of ‘outside’ empirical evidence in trying to persuade someone to ‘change their mind’.

    How other people use the model of mental reality is up to them, and there’s no such thing as “outside empirical evidence.” The only place any evidence can possibly exist is in mind. That latter is a self-evidently true statement of fact about existence. That any evidence is also a faithful representation of some imagined “external world” is necessarily an entirely unsupportable proposition, even in principle.

  34. 34
    JohnB says:

    Boring. Any cam has a blind angle/blind spot. A cam can’t “analyze” itself objectively nor a human…nor you. You say it’s possible : welcome to “Alice in Wonderland”.

    Cam=mind

Leave a Reply