Mind Over Matter, Matter Over Mind?

[owl]

Hope you don't mind me dropping in and out Shawn. I wanted to drop this link while I search out the digital forms of the books mentioned in this thread(not an easy road.)

anyphuck...

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Binary-Universe.htm


Could it be said that these waves, or these "physical" thoughts are similar to the rigdes of a record or the indentations of a CD or DVD? In the same way that the "ridge" is not the sound, nor the indentation the picture, sound, or video on the disc, so to speak;these waves and "electro-chemical" 'thoughts' are the conduit with which consciousness houses itself, but not consciousness?


















*On another more important anecdotal note, I once had an electrifying out-of-body experience after drinking a pack of red bulls and a fifth of Jim Beam....*

 

[sean69]

Here's a basic tutorial on how the brain works.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/brain_basics/know_your_brain.htm

You need to be up on all this shit before we continue this discussion.



You're a funny dude. You're telling me to read up background shit for better understanding before we continue.
Yet throughout this entire convo you've repeatedly dodged and ignored my questions.
Difference between me and you is that i'm actually gonna look up that link because I AM NOT A NEUROSCIENTIST.



And check this out. It explains what I am saying in pretty plain terms. Again our motor movement is done without our conscious knowledge. You do not have to constantly remind yourself to breathe but breathing is controlled by the mind now isn't it? Same thing with motor function. You don't have to consciously think I want my arm to move I need my arm to move now. Your body does it for you in your unconcious mind. I thought every body knew this?


It's very typical for people who really don't have a grounded understanding in what they're saying to confabulate shit.

Like physiological vs psychological concepts.

Sympathetic vs parasympathetic nervous system. Concious vs. Subcnscious.

Just because you don't "think" you're "thinking" about trivial motor responses like typing on that keyboard doesn't mean that it resides in the subconscious.

Your problem Andey is that you're proactively looking for shit to make your point.



The information processing that the brain must perform to initiate a voluntary movement can be divided into three steps. The first step is to select an appropriate response to the current situation, out of a repertoire of possible responses. This response, which corresponds to a particular behavioural objective, is determined in a global, symbolic fashion.

The second step is to plan the movement in physical terms. This step consists in defining the characteristics of the selected response as the sequence of muscle contractions required to carry it out.

The third step is to actually execute the movement. It is in this step that the motor neurons are activated that trigger the observable mechanics of the movement.
Consequently, the control messages issued by the motor cortex are themselves triggered by messages from other cortical areas. The motor cortex also communicates closely with subcortical structures such as the basal ganglia and the cerebellum, through the thalamus, which acts as a relay.

In light of what we now know about the sequence in which the motor areas of the cortex are activated, we can deconstruct the classic sequence "Ready? Set. Go!" in terms of localized activity in the brain.

OK Andey.
The paragraphs that you just posted above came from this link:
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_06/i_06_cr/i_06_cr_mou/i_06_cr_mou.html
from a website called "The Brain from Top to Bottom" which I'm very familiar with and actually posted in my science thread on here:
http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=6958764&postcount=5

That link is from the section MOTOR RESPONSES under the "intermediate level of explanation" ... which makes sense because I'm sure you were looking for information about ... well... motor responses.

Well, it's the intermediate level for a reason. Yes, neuroscientists have been able to "map" the electronics of the brain and local nervous system, but questions as to HOW the mind elicits these neural processes remains largely a mystery.

So you can deconstruct the sequence. This is what REDUCTIVE science does. But that doesn't necessarily mean that after reducing it, it gives you any understanding of the EMERGENT phenomena .... like consciousness. Hence the HOLOSTIC nature of the brain (Bohm's Holonomic Model of the Brain) which I cosign.

This gets to the crux of EVERYTHING i've been trying to communicate to you ... In vain .

ONE.

 

[sean69]

The big bang theory and the quantum theory huh, note both are theories. Since,far as I know, neither have been observed and reproduced then they are false right? Maybe there is something else we haven't encountered physically or thought of mentally or do you refuse to even consider the possibilities?

We live today because of the occurrences of yesterday.

We're looking back in time mentally attempting to figure out shit with physical observations of today so we can move forward into the unknown of tomorrow.

man, dis some good shit...want some?

Schroedinger, Bohr, Oppenheimer and arguably the greatest mind of 20th century modern physics Richard Feynman ... never came close to understanding quantum theory.
My intelligence is less than a spec of a nano-spec of any of those dudes, so i have absolutely no explanations of why quantum shit happens or even how.

But ...

To answer your question (bolded) .. No, the bigbang hasn't been observed. However, residues of the bigbang have been. And so far most of the data collected agree pretty acurately with the cosmological and fundamental physical constants. At least, under the current Standard Model paradigm.

Yes, quantum effects/phenomena have been observed and reproduced. The classic double-slit experiment (which i've demonstrated to students countless times), quantum tunneling, quantum Hall Effect, blah blah blah.
All physical observable repeatable experiments.
The very "real" "physical" computer that you're using right now takes advantage of these quantum phenomena.

And no, I don't deny the possiblity of phenomena outside the realm of our current science. As a matter of fact if you've paid attention to anything i've said in this thread (REPEATEDLY!!!) you'd see that my views are rather heretic.

You say that we live today because of experiences of yesterday. This is the common causal/deterministic mode of thinking we humans have inevitably inherited from our evolution.
Quantum mechanics changed that. Shit can happen with no cause. So i'm saying what if there was no today or tomorrow and life is just one big quantum effect and we perceive it in the classical sense because of the limitations of our brain and nervous system?
Given that a thought?

Hope you don't mind me dropping in and out Shawn. I wanted to drop this link while I search out the digital forms of the books mentioned in this thread(not an easy road.)

anyphuck...

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Binary-Universe.htm


Could it be said that these waves, or these "physical" thoughts are similar to the rigdes of a record or the indentations of a CD or DVD? In the same way that the "ridge" is not the sound, nor the indentation the picture, sound, or video on the disc, so to speak;these waves and "electro-chemical" 'thoughts' are the conduit with which consciousness houses itself, but not consciousness?


*On another more important anecdotal note, I once had an electrifying out-of-body experience after drinking a pack of red bulls and a fifth of Jim Beam....*

OWL.
I live on that spaceandmotion site.
I'm deep in the science and philosophy message board forum and over the years much of my philosophies, physics and views have been shaped by the stuff i've learnt from there.

I actually made a post in my science thread (now moved to citi) a while back on the main board and a few days ago of Milo Wolff talking about DeBroigle Waves and resolving the unification of QM and ERT paradox with the simple WSM.

Once folks in the physics community and general catch on to this, t's gonna be a big paradigm shifter. Resolves EVERY paradox in resulting from Standard Model physics like wave-particle duality which is basically an illusion.

The crazy part is that it's so fucking simple and obvious!!!

http://spaceandmotion.com/

 

[Andeyhollawho]

See what happens when you have no clue what you're talking about but foolish confidence blinds you?


BEFORE...


AFTER ...



BEFORE ...


AFTER...



You just ethered your self ... twice.

I clearly stated TWICE that EEG can show use that this "phenomena" we call brain waves exists. Said several times that this is easy to map in the UNCONCIOUS mind but not in the CONCIOUS mind.

I spent all that time saying that and you still missed it? Motor function is easy to distinguish on EEG but nothing more.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

That link is from the section MOTOR RESPONSES under the "intermediate level of explanation" ... which makes sense because I'm sure you were looking for information about ... well... motor responses.

Well, it's the intermediate level for a reason. Yes, neuroscientists have been able to "map" the electronics of the brain and local nervous system, but questions as to HOW the mind elicits these neural processes remains largely a mystery.

So you can deconstruct the sequence. This is what REDUCTIVE science does. But that doesn't necessarily mean that after reducing it, it gives you any understanding of the EMERGENT phenomena .... like consciousness. Hence the HOLOSTIC nature of the brain (Bohm's Holonomic Model of the Brain) which I cosign.

This gets to the crux of EVERYTHING i've been trying to communicate to you ... In vain

I had to go "intermediate" because obviously what I am speaking and what you are understanding is going over your head.

I asked you two simple questions...

Name me any mathematical or scientific methodology that can be attributed to the mental ONLY?

Show me how any function of the brain that produces mechanical function (such as that little ball toy) can be obtained through mental capacity only?

That's it. Plain and simple. I really don't have time again to write a thesis on this and since you like to try to pick apart every little detail of mine that I put up to try and explain different pieces of it to you this convo is becoming muddled.

Your theory...

Monism
nature is fundamentally reducibly composed of the mental and physical.

Explain to me how mental and nature even manage to be in the same sentence and you believe it? The ultimate question. You should start with the two up top though. Have fun.

 

[sean69]

I clearly stated TWICE that EEG can show use that this "phenomena" we call brain waves exists. Said several times that this is easy to map in the UNCONCIOUS mind but not in the CONCIOUS mind.

I spent all that time saying that and you still missed it? Motor function is easy to distinguish on EEG but nothing more.

W/E MAN. you've repeatedly contradicted yourself in this thread by stating shit that you dont know. And you'll keep doing it as long as you don't take the time to understand shit.

Do you even know what you mean when you say "motor function is easy to distinguish on EEG..."??
Define motor function.
Distinguish from what?
How?

Since you know so much about this shit and you have all the literature and links .. break it down from the stuff in the links you posted.
Explain how EEG distinguishes between motor function and ...w/e it is you're refering to.


At one point you said nothing outside the earth can affect whats in it.
I explained how you were wrong on that. You ignored it.

I explained how abstractions can be achieved through mathematics and it's a UNIVERSAL logic language that can be used to describe physical both terresstrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena. You continue to say it's only for shit on earth.

I asked you 2 simple questions about infinity and you dodged them.

You said ... not me ... you said that the moon influences the earth's geology and living things.
True.
And the sun too.
How the fuck does it do that? Is the moon physically touching the earth? Is the sun physically touching the earth?
I expect you to ignore these question anyway.

This is getting ridiculous now.

 

[sean69]

I had to go "intermediate" because obviously what I am speaking and what you are understanding is going over your head.



Heck, you should've gone to beginner then. Shit.
Negroe please. You just copied and pasted shit from the link in that science thread or whatever without trying to understand wtf you were posting. You ethered yourself dude. Face it.



I asked you two simple questions...

Name me any mathematical or scientific methodology that can be attributed to the mental ONLY?

WTF does that question even mean?
It makes no sense.
What area of engineering did you major in? Seriously.

Point out anywhere in this thread I said that there's a mathematical equation for thought? That's what you're alluding to right?

You must have generated this question from you bag of confabulations.

I said ABSTRACTIONS are possible using mathematics. Please go and read and understand what the word "abstraction" in this context means.
Then think about how this connects the physical to the non-physical.
You're an engineer. it shouldn't be that hard.
Look it up Andey. Geeez.




Show me how any function of the brain that produces mechanical function (such as that little ball toy) can be obtained through mental capacity only?

Ok. Let me do this again.


I believe in Monism.
Monism = physical and mental exist and they are reducibly (this means one can be reduced to the other Andey) one (hence, mono-) and the same.

Quote me anywhere in this thread where I said that ONLY mental capacity.

You know what? You can't.



That's it. Plain and simple. I really don't have time again to write a thesis on this and since you like to try to pick apart every little detail of mine that I put up to try and explain different pieces of it to you this convo is becoming muddled.

Your theory...

Monism
nature is fundamentally reducibly composed of the mental and physical.

Explain to me how mental and nature even manage to be in the same sentence and you believe it? The ultimate question. You should start with the two up top though. Have fun.

I can explain this shit to you again over and over and over but you wont get it. Why? Because you don't even get the basic fundamental shit and you've demonstarated this over and over.

If there's someone else in this thread that can. Best of luck to them.


*edit*

Oh, and i just saw this. I must have missed it in the last 2 pages of mental masterbation shooting blanksn shit.

Any scientist worth his weight in salt would discount everything you are trying to say unless I am understanding you wrong. Physical scientist...chemist, engineers, physicists, biologist, the list could go on and on would tell you that mental does not translate into anything without a physical basis.

Any scientist worth his weight in salt huh?

O Rly?

Well, here's a message board full of a bunch of scientists from diverse backgrounds with sections for physicist, biologists, chemists, engineers, etc.

http://www.physicsforums.com/

It's quite simple. Click it. Registration is free and quick. Go on there and state:

"Mental processes MUST ALWAYS have a physical basis"

Those kats are fast. I guarantee you you'll get like 10 replies in less that half an hour.

Go on Andey. Go proove me wrong.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

W/E MAN. you've repeatedly contradicted yourself in this thread by stating shit that you dont know. And you'll keep doing it as long as you don't take the time to understand shit.

Do you even know what you mean when you say "motor function is easy to distinguish on EEG..."??
Define motor function.
Distinguish from what?
How?

Ok Sean let's take baby steps. You are sitting at rest with the EEG machine on. You move your arm and one part of your brain lights up momentarily. Scientist says "Ohh that is interesting. Move it again. Now move your leg. Move it. Come on now move it again." Thingiles on the little machine light up. Which proves that the brain sends electronic impulses. Doesn't have to be a concrete map to prove my theory that the brain produces useable mechanical function if you can make a machine sensitive enough to harness that energy and if you can pinpoint where it happens at. Never said the EEG could do that. I said the EEG could prove it could be done. Fact 1.

At one point you said nothing outside the earth can affect whats in it.
I explained how you were wrong on that. You ignored it.

Read young man. Read. I said that WE cannot affect anything outside of earth and that every science that you speak of was developed on earth for earth's purposes because of what is observed on earth. Fact 2.

I explained how abstractions can be achieved through mathematics and it's a UNIVERSAL logic language that can be used to describe physical both terresstrial and extra-terrestrial phenomena. You continue to say it's only for shit on earth.

Again son in the words of KRS-One "You Must LEARN!"

Again I said that WE as in humans developed all science from earth observations and then we take that logic and apply it to extra-terrestrial beings and wonder why it don't fit. I said what if we were to really study a planet like Jupiter with an open mind and instead of looking for "carbon based life" if we looked for nitrogen based life or helium based life. Again who says what is created on earth is universal to the entire cosmos? Fact 3.

I asked you 2 simple questions about infinity and you dodged them.

What the fuck did your questions about infinity have to do with what the hell I was discussing? I said math had a physical basis. Infinity is physically based as is all math. So your questions only reinforced what I was saying and I saw no sense in going further on the subject. Fact 4.

You said ... not me ... you said that the moon influences the earth's geology and living things.
True.
And the sun too.
How the fuck does it do that? Is the moon physically touching the earth? Is the sun physically touching the earth?
I expect you to ignore these question anyway.

Is gravity magic? How about photosynthesis? So again these are PHYSICAL affects that the sun, moon and the entire galaxy has on earth. I stated this TWICE. Gravity is a physical phenomena. That is the influence that the moon has on the earth. The earth pulls on it and the moon pulls away which causes the influence. The sun is a power source which physically affects the earth. Oh and remember we are also held in orbit by gravity from the sun. All of this is physical. What the hell did you think it was? Fact 500.

This is getting ridiculous now.

It really is getting ridiculous because I have been saying from jump you have spent all this time arguing me about shit THAT IS PROVING MY POINT! So once you make my point for me I move on. All of this shit is REAL IDENTIFIABLE AND MEASUREABLE PHENOMENA! The basis of realism.

So where is monoism in all of this?

 

[Andeyhollawho]

I believe in Monism.
Monism = physical and mental exist and they are reducibly (this means one can be reduced to the other Andey) one (hence, mono-) and the same.

Quote me anywhere in this thread where I said that ONLY mental capacity.

You know what? You can't.

Monism = physical and mental exist and they are reducibly (this means one can be reduced to the other Andey) one (hence, mono-) and the same.

Again I ask you where is the mental ASPECT in your argument. All you have been arguing with me about is shit that you yourself say is PHYSICAL. Where is the mental. I know good and damn well what reducibly means and it seems to me like you are just lumping shit together and calling it philosiphy.

This all started because I said I like most scientist are realist. You said you are monoist. So show me how your "mental" aspect of this philosiphy comes into play in anything we have discussed.

The floor is yours.

 

[THREAD_CRITIC]

J/K

 

[BigUnc]

Schroedinger, Bohr, Oppenheimer and arguably the greatest mind of 20th century modern physics Richard Feynman ... never came close to understanding quantum theory.
My intelligence is less than a spec of a nano-spec of any of those dudes, so i have absolutely no explanations of why quantum shit happens or even how.

C/S

Yes, quantum effects/phenomena have been observed and reproduced. The classic double-slit experiment (which i've demonstrated to students countless times), quantum tunneling, quantum Hall Effect, blah blah blah.
All physical observable repeatable experiments.
The very "real" "physical" computer that you're using right now takes advantage of these quantum phenomena.

O RLY

Philipp Frank, philosopher and physicist,1844-1966
Philosophy of Science, p. 200
"investigating the motion of single particles through a single slit can obtain a description of the pattern of photon strikes on a target screen. However, "the pattern of fringes for two slits is not the superposition of the two patterns for single slits. Hence, there is no law of motion that would determine the trajectory of a single photon and allow us to derive the observed facts that occur when photons pass two slits."

Only time I heard of quantum tunneling was in relation to alpha particle decay at a rad/nuc class. Just read some basic stuff and all I got to say is GTFOH. Who in hell thinks up this stuff? I'm not going into quantum hall effect right now. My head hurts.

And no, I don't deny the possiblity of phenomena outside the realm of our current science. As a matter of fact if you've paid attention to anything i've said in this thread (REPEATEDLY!!!) you'd see that my views are rather heretic.

You say that we live today because of experiences of yesterday. This is the common causal/deterministic mode of thinking we humans have inevitably inherited from our evolution.
Quantum mechanics changed that. Shit can happen with no cause. So i'm saying what if there was no today or tomorrow and life is just one big quantum effect and we perceive it in the classical sense because of the limitations of our brain and nervous system?
Given that a thought?

You and those labels. I bet you got your left and right shoe labeled

No I haven't thought of that but I will as soon as you pass the bong back.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

J/K

You right! You right!

 

[sean69]

Ok Sean let's take baby steps. You are sitting at rest with the EEG machine on. You move your arm and one part of your brain lights up momentarily. Scientist says "Ohh that is interesting. Move it again. Now move your leg. Move it. Come on now move it again." Thingiles on the little machine light up. Which proves that the brain sends electronic impulses. Doesn't have to be a concrete map to prove my theory that the brain produces useable mechanical function if you can make a machine sensitive enough to harness that energy and if you can pinpoint where it happens at. Never said the EEG could do that. I said the EEG could prove it could be done. Fact 1.

You're sounding pretty defensive here as I suspected.

Andey, you ain saying nothing new. Machines can detect electrical signals from the brain and body. So?

You said EEG could pinpoint EXACT locations and MAP them out .. and I quote again ...

Originally Posted by Andeyhollawho
What you are seeing with that toy is the next level of EEG. Tapping into a region of the brain that if certain activity is done will produce a desired result. This again is not hard to understand.

What scientist have been working on for years is MAPPING the regions of the brain that "fire" when certain activities are done. We have equipment that does that now. EEG and others do this fairly easy.

Then once I exposed that you had no clue what the link you posted was saying you said ...

One important use of EEGs has been to show how long it takes the brain to process various stimuli. A major drawback of EEGs, however, is that they cannot show us the structures and anatomy of the brain or really tell us which specific regions of the brain do what.

From my understanding an probably any 3rd grader, the "anatomy of the brain and specific regions" would imply "Mapping".



Concede the L here dude.





Read young man. Read. I said that WE cannot affect anything outside of earth and that every science that you speak of was developed on earth for earth's purposes because of what is observed on earth. Fact 2.

But then I explained to you with a quite straightforward argument, that WE are products of physical and non-physical things OUTSIDE of the earth. The Sun, how the earth was formed as examples. I even posted short videos to help explain this.

Do you care to comment on this Andey?





Again son in the words of KRS-One "You Must LEARN!"

Again I said that WE as in humans developed all science from earth observations and then we take that logic and apply it to extra-terrestrial beings and wonder why it don't fit. I said what if we were to really study a planet like Jupiter with an open mind and instead of looking for "carbon based life" if we looked for nitrogen based life or helium based life. Again who says what is created on earth is universal to the entire cosmos? Fact 3.

Another case of word-salad.

Are you aware that most of what inspired the development of mathematics was due to star gazing? Astrology? Things observed OUTSIDE the earth?

What do you mean it doesnt fit when applied to extraterrestrial beings. OMG
When did I ever say Extraterrestrial "beings"?
Find it and quote it
You read the word Extra-Terrestril and the first thing that came to your mind was probably ET or alien life.

FAIL nigga!

I said EXTRATERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA like the activity of planets (magnetic fields), stars (nuclear fusion), etc.

EPIC ET FAIL!!!



What the fuck did your questions about infinity have to do with what the hell I was discussing? I said math had a physical basis. Infinity is physically based as is all math. So your questions only reinforced what I was saying and I saw no sense in going further on the subject. Fact 4.

The reason i asked the question was because early in the thread you kept on bringing up the notion a FINITE earth, universe. whatever that means in relation to containment of physical shit in earth.

So I asked you to answer two simple questions that would expose your ignorance on what the concept of infinity is ... which is some serious paradoxicall confusing abstract shit ... in relation to what you're talking about.

Because you seemed to the throwing that word "finite" all reckless like n shit.

You said ... not me ... you said that the moon influences the earth's geology and living things.
True.
And the sun too.
How the fuck does it do that? Is the moon physically touching the earth? Is the sun physically touching the earth?
I expect you to ignore these question anyway.

Is gravity magic? How about photosynthesis? So again these are PHYSICAL affects that the sun, moon and the entire galaxy has on earth. I stated this TWICE. Gravity is a physical phenomena. That is the influence that the moon has on the earth. The earth pulls on it and the moon pulls away which causes the influence. The sun is a power source which physically affects the earth. Oh and remember we are also held in orbit by gravity from the sun. All of this is physical. What the hell did you think it was? Fact 500.

OK. So what's between the earth, sun and moon that mediates this physical interaction? Because obviously they aint touching. So. What is it?

You're answer here might end this convo.



This is getting ridiculous now.

It really is getting ridiculous because I have been saying from jump you have spent all this time arguing me about shit THAT IS PROVING MY POINT! So once you make my point for me I move on. All of this shit is REAL IDENTIFIABLE AND MEASUREABLE PHENOMENA! The basis of realism.

So where is monoism in all of this?

ONE

 

[BigUnc]

You right! You right!

 

[sean69]

Monism = physical and mental exist and they are reducibly (this means one can be reduced to the other Andey) one (hence, mono-) and the same.

Again I ask you where is the mental ASPECT in your argument. All you have been arguing with me about is shit that you yourself say is PHYSICAL. Where is the mental. I know good and damn well what reducibly means and it seems to me like you are just lumping shit together and calling it philosiphy.

This all started because I said I like most scientist are realist. You said you are monoist. So show me how your "mental" aspect of this philosiphy comes into play in anything we have discussed.

The floor is yours.

*sigh*

Sure you wana go there? Because I've spent 3 pages argung with you about shit peripheral to the crux of monism and you cnt even grasp those concepts.

But ehh, what the heck.

Are you familiar with the DOUBLE-SLIT experiment? The MEASUREMENT PROBLEM?

There's your answer.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

Is gravity a physical phenomena? Yes or no?

 

[Andeyhollawho]

Again I said that WE as in humans developed all science from earth observations and then we take that logic and apply it to extra-terrestrial beings and wonder why it don't fit. I said what if we were to really study a planet like Jupiter with an open mind and instead of looking for "carbon based life" if we looked for nitrogen based life or helium based life. Again who says what is created on earth is universal to the entire cosmos? Fact 3.

Another case of word-salad.

Are you aware that most of what inspired the development of mathematics was due to star gazing? Astrology? Things observed OUTSIDE the earth?

What do you mean it doesnt fit when applied to extraterrestrial beings. OMG
When did I ever say Extraterrestrial "beings"?
Find it and quote it
You read the word Extra-Terrestril and the first thing that came to your mind was probably ET or alien life.

FAIL nigga!

I said EXTRATERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA like the activity of planets (magnetic fields), stars (nuclear fusion), etc.

EPIC ET FAIL!!!

Epic fail on your part my nigga. You too busy reading words to grasp concepts. I brought up life as only one of the many things that we as earth people have misconceptions about in an extra-terrestrial sense. As in we apply science that is logical to us and anything found outside of earth that don't fit it is deemed irrational. SUCH AS life being nitrogen based instead of carbon based. Is it really this goddamn hard. I was continuing on from the previous convo that YOU quoted. Didn't know I had to back up and rewind every time to get every nuance right so you could understand it.

And math began as a way to explain extra-terrestiral phenomena's effects on EARTH. Such as the sun dial? And the position of the stars was not merely a study of the stars it was again a study of how those constillations related to earth. Not to the heavens...EARTH.

See you still have a way of getting bogged down on the simplest shit and try to disprove it just to say you won something. You not winning this debate because you still haven't shown ME where monoism trumps realism yet. These little side squabbles where you are trying to teach me shit I already know is pathetic. I'm talking to you as somebody I assume already knows the ins and outs and you keep proving to me that you do and then beat your chest about the shit.

Move to how monoism trumps realism please. The crux of this discussion I thought.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

*sigh*

Sure you wana go there? Because I've spent 3 pages argung with you about shit peripheral to the crux of monism and you cnt even grasp those concepts.

But ehh, what the heck.

Are you familiar with the DOUBLE-SLIT experiment? The MEASUREMENT PROBLEM?

There's your answer.

That's not a goddamn answer. Are you familiar with... Make me familiar with your shit. Don't send me out to research the shit YOU post so that way I can come back and you can say..."See you don't understand it." Your arguement so you make it make sense to me.

How does monoism trump realism. Where does mental come into this equation at all. Go.

 

[sean69]

C/S





O RLY

Philipp Frank, philosopher and physicist,1844-1966
Philosophy of Science, p. 200
"investigating the motion of single particles through a single slit can obtain a description of the pattern of photon strikes on a target screen. However, "the pattern of fringes for two slits is not the superposition of the two patterns for single slits. Hence, there is no law of motion that would determine the trajectory of a single photon and allow us to derive the observed facts that occur when photons pass two slits."

OK. so the bolded part basically restates Heisenburgs Uncertainty Principle.

And your point is???

We humans "observe" effects of quantum phenomena because of decoherence/wave-function collapse ... w/e.

Are we about to battle over the semantics of the word "observe" now?

Only time I heard of quantum tunneling was in relation to alpha particle decay at a rad/nuc class. Just read some basic stuff and all I got to say is GTFOH. Who in hell thinks up this stuff? I'm not going into quantum hall effect right now. My head hurts.

Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM) is a pretty routine analytical tool in most material science labs. Based on quantum tunneling. I use this all the time at work to study surface features of spin-coated polymers on silicon.

Ferroelectric material are are used to make devices that take advantage of QT .. like RFID chips, memory storage in computers and shit like that.

Next gen Field Emission flat pannel displays

Your next gen touch screen electronics

Basically applications that require real small dimensions.

TI get the sense that you think i'm making shit up?

i wonder why

You and those labels. I bet you got your left and right shoe labeled

No I haven't thought of that but I will as soon as you pass the bong back.

What labels?
No need to be fecetious, just say what you gotta say. Shit. LOL.

 

[sean69]

Is gravity a physical phenomena? Yes or no?

I don't know.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

I don't know.

You do know. That is the link between the sun, moon and earth. You asked for my answer and there it is.

Physical or some mix of physical and mental?

That mental shit don't work with nothing but humans but you still standing by it. How in the hell do we have an exclusive science dedicated to only humans that can't even be reproduced from one human to the next.

 

[owl]

J/K

LLAM!!!

Glad to see the "revolution" didn't sour your sense of humor...

 

[sean69]

Epic fail on your part my nigga. You too busy reading words to grasp concepts. I brought up life as only one of the many things that we as earth people have misconceptions about in an extra-terrestrial sense. As in we apply science that is logical to us and anything found outside of earth that don't fit it is deemed irrational. SUCH AS life being nitrogen based instead of carbon based. Is it really this goddamn hard. I was continuing on from the previous convo that YOU quoted. Didn't know I had to back up and rewind every time to get every nuance right so you could understand it.

OK. Mybad. You meant everything ET.
Ok. so what's your answer though?



And math began as a way to explain extra-terrestiral phenomena's effects on EARTH. Such as the sun dial? And the position of the stars was not merely a study of the stars it was again a study of how those constillations related to earth. Not to the heavens...EARTH.

Effects. Right, right. OK. I agree.
But what's your answer though?



See you still have a way of getting bogged down on the simplest shit and try to disprove it just to say you won something. You not winning this debate because you still haven't shown ME where monoism trumps realism yet. These little side squabbles where you are trying to teach me shit I already know is pathetic. I'm talking to you as somebody I assume already knows the ins and outs and you keep proving to me that you do and then beat your chest about the shit.

Do I sense the capture of feelings?
Nah, Andey, I'm not trying to teach you shit. I just scrutinize what i read b4 i accept it. As you should too. Then I comment on it.

So yeah, maybe i'm a bit finicky about nuance shit. Sue. me.



Move to how monoism trumps realism please. The crux of this discussion I thought.

Again.

What is your understanding/interpretation of the double slit experiment? ... or the "measurment problem"?

The holistic nature of the universe and the brain which are reducibly connected (my monist view) is the reason why "conciousness" (mental processes during observation) causes the "collapse".

By collapse (decoherence of quantum states) I mean that the of the abstract mathematical wave-functions that describes physical things, for lack of a better word, get solved.

I believe this happens at the instance of observation of an event.

 

[sean69]

That's not a goddamn answer. Are you familiar with... Make me familiar with your shit. Don't send me out to research the shit YOU post so that way I can come back and you can say..."See you don't understand it." Your arguement so you make it make sense to me.

How does monoism trump realism. Where does mental come into this equation at all. Go.

Andey!
You taught me how to do that.

You're a funny dude.

Anyway, I explained it already. LOL

OH BY THE WAY I NEVER SAID MONISM TRUMPS REALISM.

QUOTE ME IN THIS THREAD WHERE I SAID THAT OR EVEN ALLUDED TO THAT.

I CAN'T DISPROVE WHAT YOUR BELIEF IS. THAT'S STUPID.

ALL I'VE BEEN DOING IS CHALLENGING YOUR ASSERTIONS

YOU SEEM TO BE MANUFACTURING ALLEGATIONS N SHIT. CALM DOWN BUDDY. LOL

 

[sean69]

You do know. That is the link between the sun, moon and earth. You asked for my answer and there it is.

Physical or some mix of physical and mental?

That mental shit don't work with nothing but humans but you still standing by it. How in the hell do we have an exclusive science dedicated to only humans that can't even be reproduced from one human to the next.

Nicca I said i don't know! You tryna force me?

I swear i don't know the nature of gravity. But...my gut feeling ... i'd guess it's both physical and metaphysical

Not really a mix as in 1+1 = 2 but more like 1+1 = 1


Oh, and most social sciences like say ...psychology is very subjective. Two patients can have a mental disorder of the same physical cause but respond to treatment differently.

You know what, physical science is fundamentally subjective too when you think about it.

It's statistical in nature. Groups of collected data are always expressed as a distribution (bell curve) and the steeper the curve the more "confident" the results. But there's always gonna be some noise or error which makes the results essentially not absolute.

Thats why science uses control experiments to support data. Like placebo studies in pharmaceutical science. Tynenol seems to fix a headache 99.999999999999999...% of the time.

Ah. I digress....

 

[sean69]

Philipp Frank, philosopher and physicist,1844-1966
Philosophy of Science, p. 200

Unc, I knew the name Phillip Frank sounded familiar. Just read up some background on him. He's was a logical-positivist. Which makes sense of the excerpt from his book you quote. Of course he's not c/s-ing the apparent metaphysical wierdness of the QM basis of the DS experiment.

I'm gonna cop the book though and put it on my to read list.

But again, to the counter-point I think you were trying to make, the criterion of falsifiability (Karl Popper), NOT verifiability of a theory/law (which you c/s'd btw) comes into play.

"there's no law of motion that would determine the trajectory of a single photon and allow us to derive the observed facts ..."

The the criterion there ^^^ demands verifiability which almost always leads to the philosophical "hand-wavy" issues that are typically associated with verifying an induction.

This is essentially what I was refering to when I said that i hope we don't start a debate about the philosophical meaning of what an "observation" is. Which can get pretty ugly quick.

And now that i think about it, that statement is also a way of rephrasing "Laplace's Demon" Basically, we're not omniscient. What else is new?

In which case the double-slit experiment actually supports it. Hmph!



Let me try an analogy here. Please comment if you think i'm off. You may probably already know this, if so I hope i'm not burping here.

The ancient Greeks held to the metaphysical 'theories' like "phlogiston" which described the nature of fire as an element and the "luminiferous aether" which described the nature of the medium of propagation of light.
Both theories centuries later were "ocked" by the discovery of oxygen/how combustion works and Einsteins SR respectively.

Popper basically argued against logical-positivists saying that phenomena that were described as metaphysical (phlogiston, the aether) were not meaningless because even though they were metaphysical and couldn't be falsified, it didn't mean that many years later with the advancement of science and knowledge that they couldn't be developed into a falsifiable theories that satisfied the criterion for science. Even if interpretations of the phenomena could have metaphysical consequences.

Thomas Kuhn's, on "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" ... basically says that a science evolves through paradigm shifts and the results of an experiment is either wrong or right depending on the fit to the current prevailing paradigm. If it doesn't then its bullshit.

wrt that Phillip Frank quote you cited, if you apply the laws of physics as defined by the Standard Model of Particle physics, then yeah, depending on the combo of your philosophical interpretation of results and the current model you end up with a multitude of interpretations/explanations of that wave-particle duality/double-slit experiment paradox. Like over a dozen interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (Coppenhagen, blah blah blah), resolutions for non-locality (EPR paradox, Bell's Inequalities, hidden variables blah blah blah), many-worlds parallel universes etc.
I've gotten tired of slicing n dicing and my (Occam's) razor is blunt.


So like I said before and recently responding to OWL's post with that link he posted ... that the current model of physics I c/s is WSM. Which is simple and straight forward and preserves my razor.


And FYI and other kats posting in this thread i'm not trying to "trump" according to Andey, anyone's beliefs or win free tickets to Six-Flags n shit.

 

[BigUnc]

OK. so the bolded part basically restates Heisenburgs Uncertainty Principle.

And your point is???

We humans "observe" effects of quantum phenomena because of decoherence/wave-function collapse ... w/e.

Are we about to battle over the semantics of the word "observe" now?

You claim it's observable. Frank says the facts can't be observed. Where's the semantics? Appears to be a fundamental disagreement to me.

Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM) is a pretty routine analytical tool in most material science labs. Based on quantum tunneling. I use this all the time at work to study surface features of spin-coated polymers on silicon.

Ferroelectric material are are used to make devices that take advantage of QT .. like RFID chips, memory storage in computers and shit like that.

Next gen Field Emission flat pannel displays

Your next gen touch screen electronics

Basically applications that require real small dimensions.

TI get the sense that you think i'm making shit up?

i wonder why

Props bruh on your career choice. You obviously got the knowledge,skills and abilities. No I don't think you're making shit up,actually I'm probably gonna pick your brains about detecting biological warfare agents in non-protein mediums.

What labels?
No need to be fecetious, just say what you gotta say. Shit. LOL.

Just joking. Throughout this thread you have a tendency to slap a label on something without defining/describing what it means.
A few examples:
Bohmian holonomic model of the brain
holistic model of the universe
dynamic unity of reality
logical positivist
Heisenburgs Uncertainty Principle

it's all good bruh.....just saying

 

[sean69]

You claim it's observable. Frank says the facts can't be observed. Where's the semantics? Appears to be a fundamental disagreement to me.

OK. I guess you havn't read my long-ass paragraph response (LOL...sorry for that man, No-Collin) explaining this. I'll wait.

But when I said it's observable I meant as in you can see the fringe paterns form on the screen.

You can also see that the minute you try and detect or record how the light passes through the slits, the fringe patterns disappear and just two band appear.

When Franky says "derive the observed facts" he's refering to obtaining knowledge of all the informtion ... the motion (angular velocity to be precise) and position/loction of the photon as it moves ... aka its "trajectory".

He's just recanting the uncertainty principle - a fundamental tenet of QM.

I'm saying "physical and observable" as in you can see the results in the macro-world objectively.

And I've already explained why that is.

The only disagreement here is in semantics/context.




Props bruh on your career choice. You obviously got the knowledge,skills and abilities. No I don't think you're making shit up,actually I'm probably gonna pick your brains about detecting biological warfare agents in non-protein mediums.

I was just saying. I'm not posturing here, I promise. LOL.
I'm active on a few physics and philosophy forums but that shit gets tedious and boring after a while. A heterogenous soup of science nerds with a side of steamed ego.
Ironically, I get more new info on a porn board.






Just joking. Throughout this thread you have a tendency to slap a label on something without defining/describing what it means.
A few examples:

Bohmian holonomic model of the brain - The brain stores information and works like a hologram.

holistic model of the universe - The universe and all the information in it works like a hologram and you can't reduce it to peices to understand its fundamental nature. This is why the current science paradigm will continue to fall short.

dynamic unity of reality - Both ancient and modern philosophers have deduced that reality is a dynamic unity. Ancient Indian Philosophy and Greek Philosophy, and later western philosophers (countless quotes support this by the way) used the logic of philosophy and metaphysics, understanding thier necessary connections, to assert that all matter and motion (the entire universe) was derived from one substance.

logical positivist - c/s's the following...

1) the only genuine propositions (that are strictly true or false about the world) are those that are verifiable by the methods of science
(2) the supposed propositions of ethics, metaphysics and theology are not verifiable and so are not strictly 'meaningful'
(3) the propositions of logic and mathematics are meaningful but their truth is discovered by analysis and not by experiment and observation
(4) the business of philosophy is not to engage in metaphysics or other attempted assertions about what is the case- it is, rather, to engage in analysis.

Summary = no point talkin' 'bout shit you can't see, touch, smell, feel or taste. aka Andeyhollawhoism


Heisenburgs Uncertainty Principle - already explained.

it's all good bruh.....just saying




sorry about that man. Sometimes I get carried away and forget the audience.
Noted for the future.

PAX

 

[BigUnc]

Unc, I knew the name Phillip Frank sounded familiar. Just read up some background on him. He's was a logical-positivist. Which makes sense of the excerpt from his book you quote. Of course he's not c/s-ing the apparent metaphysical wierdness of the QM basis of the DS experiment.

I'm gonna cop the book though and put it on my to read list.

But again, to the counter-point I think you were trying to make, the criterion of falsifiability (Karl Popper), NOT verifiability of a theory/law (which you c/s'd btw) comes into play.

"there's no law of motion that would determine the trajectory of a single photon and allow us to derive the observed facts ..."

The the criterion there ^^^ demands verifiability which almost always leads to the philosophical "hand-wavy" issues that are typically associated with verifying an induction.

This is essentially what I was refering to when I said that i hope we don't start a debate about the philosophical meaning of what an "observation" is. Which can get pretty ugly quick.

And now that i think about it, that statement is also a way of rephrasing "Laplace's Demon" Basically, we're not omniscient. What else is new?

In which case the double-slit experiment actually supports it. Hmph!



Let me try an analogy here. Please comment if you think i'm off. You may probably already know this, if so I hope i'm not burping here.

The ancient Greeks held to the metaphysical 'theories' like "phlogiston" which described the nature of fire as an element and the "luminiferous aether" which described the nature of the medium of propagation of light.
Both theories centuries later were "ocked" by the discovery of oxygen/how combustion works and Einsteins SR respectively.

Popper basically argued against logical-positivists saying that phenomena that were described as metaphysical (phlogiston, the aether) were not meaningless because even though they were metaphysical and couldn't be falsified, it didn't mean that many years later with the advancement of science and knowledge that they couldn't be developed into a falsifiable theories that satisfied the criterion for science. Even if interpretations of the phenomena could have metaphysical consequences.

Thomas Kuhn's, on "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" ... basically says that a science evolves through paradigm shifts and the results of an experiment is either wrong or right depending on the fit to the current prevailing paradigm. If it doesn't then its bullshit.

wrt that Phillip Frank quote you cited, if you apply the laws of physics as defined by the Standard Model of Particle physics, then yeah, depending on the combo of your philosophical interpretation of results and the current model you end up with a multitude of interpretations/explanations of that wave-particle duality/double-slit experiment paradox. Like over a dozen interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (Coppenhagen, blah blah blah), resolutions for non-locality (EPR paradox, Bell's Inequalities, hidden variables blah blah blah), many-worlds parallel universes etc.
I've gotten tired of slicing n dicing and my (Occam's) razor is blunt.


So like I said before and recently responding to OWL's post with that link he posted ... that the current model of physics I c/s is WSM. Which is simple and straight forward and preserves my razor.


And FYI and other kats posting in this thread i'm not trying to "trump" according to Andey, anyone's beliefs or win free tickets to Six-Flags n shit.

Nothing you've written I have an issue with. Excellent presentation bruh.

Poppers argument is particularly impressive although pointing the finger only at logical-positivist is,IMO, misguided. His argument applies to a whole range of theories and the current scientific knowledge base. To me, seems like he had a personal beef with logical-positivists.

 

[sean69]

Nothing you've written I have an issue with. Excellent presentation bruh.

Poppers argument is particularly impressive although pointing the finger only at logical-positivist is,IMO, misguided. His argument applies to a whole range of theories and the current scientific knowledge base. To me, seems like he had a personal beef with logical-positivists.

You know what. I agree.
May of these kats had beefs of some nature. When you read up their backgrounds, biographies, people who influenced them etc ... it usully adds up.

His argument was pretty heretic at the time even though falsifiability is an essentialy tenet of modern science today.

He basically went in on any philosophy that drew from or was based on the "observe-then-induce" ontology.

Like Kuhn would say, new school emerges when the old school dies.

 

[OnSlaught]

OK OK OK, I was asked to read this thread, but the shit is so convoluted with PERCEPTIONS and OPINIONS that I don't really know where to start.

So rather than trying to address or pin point any particular argument or question in this thread, I'll just give you my take on this "matter".

My PERSPECTIVE AND PERCEPTION is rooted in my learnings from being a student of science and of spirit.

From the options mentioned in the OP, I would have to count myself as a monist. I do believe in a monad, which is a philosophy of being one. If you look at what we are composed of, we are what Carl Sagan called "Star stuff", primarily because we consist of the same molecules that came from the beginning singularity. Whether you want to call that the Big bang, God's creation, or the result of two membranes rubbing together to produce another membrane which is our universe, it is all one in the same, just from different perspectives.

Sean, remember when I said read my sig quote and you were like, that's cool but what does it mean? Well it refers to what you are discussing in this very thread. Basically you are not limited to your own thoughts and that the mind, whether you want to separate it from the brain or not, is responsible for some of the most creative manifestations in this universe.

It is very limiting and egotistical to center things around this world. As a species we've "been there, done that" so to speak. Quite frankly, if the knowledge of wielding atomic energy was present then we might have not advanced past that era.

It might not be very "REAL" to conceptualize the universe because it is not tangible to you, but neither is love, or emotional pain, or fear and we see those as being apart of our everyday, REAL world.

To imagine that there is no other life or minds in a universe that houses over 100 million galaxies, that each contain over 100 million stars that even more fantastically contain over 100 million planets and moons is astronomically limiting to your intellectual capacity to exercise right thought.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

Again.

What is your understanding/interpretation of the double slit experiment? ... or the "measurment problem"?

The holistic nature of the universe and the brain which are reducibly connected (my monist view) is the reason why "conciousness" (mental processes during observation) causes the "collapse".

By collapse (decoherence of quantum states) I mean that the of the abstract mathematical wave-functions that describes physical things, for lack of a better word, get solved.

I believe this happens at the instance of observation of an event.

When properly conducted, scientific investigations never draw conclusions directly from observations.

 

[OnSlaught]

When properly conducted, scientific investigations never draw conclusions directly from observations.

Andey, do I need to get you a copy of the scientific method brotha? Observations are the scientists key tool in his/her tool box!

You can never OBSERVE TOO MUCH!!! The make or break point is properly collecting data and extrapolating that data to match your hypothesis, all of that is based on your observations!

 

[Andeyhollawho]

OK OK OK, I was asked to read this thread, but the shit is so convoluted with PERCEPTIONS and OPINIONS that I don't really know where to start.

So rather than trying to address or pin point any particular argument or question in this thread, I'll just give you my take on this "matter".

My PERSPECTIVE AND PERCEPTION is rooted in my learnings from being a student of science and of spirit.

From the options mentioned in the OP, I would have to count myself as a monist. I do believe in a monad, which is a philosophy of being one. If you look at what we are composed of, we are what Carl Sagan called "Star stuff", primarily because we consist of the same molecules that came from the beginning singularity. Whether you want to call that the Big bang, God's creation, or the result of two membranes rubbing together to produce another membrane which is our universe, it is all one in the same, just from different perspectives.

Sean, remember when I said read my sig quote and you were like, that's cool but what does it mean? Well it refers to what you are discussing in this very thread. Basically you are not limited to your own thoughts and that the mind, whether you want to separate it from the brain or not, is responsible for some of the most creative manifestations in this universe.

It is very limiting and egotistical to center things around this world. As a species we've "been there, done that" so to speak. Quite frankly, if the knowledge of wielding atomic energy was present then we might have not advanced past that era.

It might not be very "REAL" to conceptualize the universe because it is not tangible to you, but neither is love, or emotional pain, or fear and we see those as being apart of our everyday, REAL world.

To imagine that there is no other life or minds in a universe that houses over 100 million galaxies, that each contain over 100 million stars that even more fantastically contain over 100 million planets and moons is astronomically limiting to your intellectual capacity to exercise right thought.

Very concise. Again I disagree.

See what is happening here is people are mixing science with psychology. There is no true science of love, emotional pain or fear. That is not science. I thought everybody agreed on that but obviously we don't.

Psychology is a collection of ideas about what would be, should be or could be but all of that shit is unreliable and untestable. Just like there being life and minds in the universe. Until that life and those minds can be discovered then we have no comparison and therefore WE are doing the best we can with what we got. What we got is science. What ya'll are talking about is not scientific.

Do you understand what I'm saying cause Sean don't!

 

[Andeyhollawho]

Andey, do I need to get you a copy of the scientific method brotha? Observations are the scientists key tool in his/her tool box!

You can never OBSERVE TOO MUCH!!! The make or break point is properly collecting data and extrapolating that data to match your hypothesis, all of that is based on your observations!

You can observe all you want but observation is not science. You never draw conclusions DIRECTLY from observations.

Aight I took a psychology class and this was required reading. It's long as hell but it speaks to a lot of what I am saying right now. If you want to read through it you can. I will read through it again too but that quote is from this paper.

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/