|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Nov 30, 2023 0:42:58 GMT
Just a general observation: You seem to be jumping into all sorts of hasty conclusions. Like, because I disagree with one thing then I must also disagree with another and instead of keeping your focus on the subject at hand jumping from subject to subject all the while making a plethora of assumptions about what I must think. Not really. It's a conversation. Not everything I post is a refutation of what I think you think. I did, however, presume that you thought that quantum effects were "only micro and not macro"—probably because that's what I thought. To a large extent, I still do; cases of macro entanglement seem to require very special and controlled circumstances. Anyway, the whole point (going way back) was that "the way things are" is not limited to what we perceive and experience. We were discussing about how "conscious perception" has an effect on reality. It's really not very near the idea that the way things are is limited to what we perceive, in fact it's a completely different subject. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 30, 2023 12:38:29 GMT
Not really. It's a conversation. Not everything I post is a refutation of what I think you think. I did, however, presume that you thought that quantum effects were "only micro and not macro"—probably because that's what I thought. To a large extent, I still do; cases of macro entanglement seem to require very special and controlled circumstances. Anyway, the whole point (going way back) was that "the way things are" is not limited to what we perceive and experience. We were discussing about how "conscious perception" has an effect on reality. It's really not very near the idea that the way things are is limited to what we perceive, in fact it's a completely different subject. And prior to that we were discussing to what extent our perception describes “reality.” As for to what extent our consciousness has an effect on reality, I brought up because of the theory that claims “reality as we understand it” is an interface between our consciousness and underlying reality that is not immediately apparent to our senses. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Nov 30, 2023 20:13:04 GMT
We were discussing about how "conscious perception" has an effect on reality. It's really not very near the idea that the way things are is limited to what we perceive, in fact it's a completely different subject. And prior to that we were discussing to what extent our perception describes “reality.” As for to what extent our consciousness has an effect on reality, I brought up because of the theory that claims “reality as we understand it” is an interface between our consciousness and underlying reality that is not immediately apparent to our senses. Stripped of "modernist jargon", this is essentially Plato's cave allegory, IOW not a new idea, not by a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 1, 2023 0:05:25 GMT
And prior to that we were discussing to what extent our perception describes “reality.” As for to what extent our consciousness has an effect on reality, I brought up because of the theory that claims “reality as we understand it” is an interface between our consciousness and underlying reality that is not immediately apparent to our senses. Stripped of "modernist jargon", this is essentially Plato's cave allegory, IOW not a new idea, not by a lot. It is similar to Plato's cave, yes. But not just backed by jargon. It's likely that any underlying reality would be completely inaccessible to us, sensorily and cognitively. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Dec 2, 2023 20:58:47 GMT
If no one is seeing the green apple, it's not being perceived as one. I think the object still exists in whatever its true form is (fundamental particles or vibrating strings or intersecting quantum fields or or or...), but the experience of the object as a green apple does not. At this time, it's not known how the odd world of quantum effects can make our boring Newtonian world. However, this is not anything like consciousness being the substance of reality. To put another wrinkle in it, we perceive things unconsciously, as well. Or maybe I should say, we receive sensory data that our brain just ignores. Weirder yet, we receive and make decisions about sensory data without even being conscious of anything happening. This happens on a long drive, when I zone out of conscious attention to my driving, all while receiving sensory data about the car and adjusting my driving accordingly. I am sorry but this is just fantasy and has nothing to do with the Quantum Theory which is about particles and not at all about some supposed "state of mind". Quantum theory is about the way things work at the quantum level, which includes particles but is definitely not limited to them. You are correct that quantum theory is not about a state of mind; I never argued that it was. What I am saying is that quantum effects somehow give rise to our not-apparently-quantum ("Newtonian") world, and that our senses are tuned to perceive the Newtonian world, and our minds evolved to present Newtonian experiences. Minds alter reality to some degree, but not in the sense of miraculous or magical. (Ever feel warmth when you're angry? Your mind is altering your body, which is part of reality.) What minds actually do is construct our experiences from reality. We see green apples, but that is an experience constructed by our minds. If our minds were different, we might see vastly different colors, or no color, or see nothing, or see intersecting quantum fields, or atomic lattices. What we experience is our mind's interpretation of reality. That is definitely not some woo-woo magical mental powers view. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 2, 2023 22:23:29 GMT
I am sorry but this is just fantasy and has nothing to do with the Quantum Theory which is about particles and not at all about some supposed "state of mind". Quantum theory is about the way things work at the quantum level, which includes particles but is definitely not limited to them. You are correct that quantum theory is not about a state of mind; I never argued that it was. What I am saying is that quantum effects somehow give rise to our not-apparently-quantum ("Newtonian") world, and that our senses are tuned to perceive the Newtonian world, and our minds evolved to present Newtonian experiences. Minds alter reality to some degree, but not in the sense of miraculous or magical. (Ever feel warmth when you're angry? Your mind is altering your body, which is part of reality.) What minds actually do is construct our experiences from reality. We see green apples, but that is an experience constructed by our minds. If our minds were different, we might see vastly different colors, or no color, or see nothing, or see intersecting quantum fields, or atomic lattices. What we experience is our mind's interpretation of reality. That is definitely not some woo-woo magical mental powers view. At a secondary or tertiary level, minds "create reality" as ideas are manifested as physical objects. A hundred years ago, there was nothing at all like a Tesla Cybertruck. Some years ago it was an idea. The idea became a series of projects and sketches, and after a weirdly long time, they are finally being delivered to customers. Without "mind," the reality of the existence of the Tesla Cybertruck would not have happened. Somewhere in there, physical reality was constructed by mind. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 3, 2023 21:36:28 GMT
Quantum theory is about the way things work at the quantum level, which includes particles but is definitely not limited to them. You are correct that quantum theory is not about a state of mind; I never argued that it was. What I am saying is that quantum effects somehow give rise to our not-apparently-quantum ("Newtonian") world, and that our senses are tuned to perceive the Newtonian world, and our minds evolved to present Newtonian experiences. Minds alter reality to some degree, but not in the sense of miraculous or magical. (Ever feel warmth when you're angry? Your mind is altering your body, which is part of reality.) What minds actually do is construct our experiences from reality. We see green apples, but that is an experience constructed by our minds. If our minds were different, we might see vastly different colors, or no color, or see nothing, or see intersecting quantum fields, or atomic lattices. What we experience is our mind's interpretation of reality. That is definitely not some woo-woo magical mental powers view. At a secondary or tertiary level, minds "create reality" as ideas are manifested as physical objects. A hundred years ago, there was nothing at all like a Tesla Cybertruck. Some years ago it was an idea. The idea became a series of projects and sketches, and after a weirdly long time, they are finally being delivered to customers. Without "mind," the reality of the existence of the Tesla Cybertruck would not have happened. Somewhere in there, physical reality was constructed by mind.  No offense but this sounds like a commercial for Tesla Cyber trucks. Read it with that in mind and you'll see that I am right. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 4, 2023 2:10:33 GMT
At a secondary or tertiary level, minds "create reality" as ideas are manifested as physical objects. A hundred years ago, there was nothing at all like a Tesla Cybertruck. Some years ago it was an idea. The idea became a series of projects and sketches, and after a weirdly long time, they are finally being delivered to customers. Without "mind," the reality of the existence of the Tesla Cybertruck would not have happened. Somewhere in there, physical reality was constructed by mind. No offense but this sounds like a commercial for Tesla Cyber trucks. Read it with that in mind and you'll see that I am right. Sure... 🙂 Substitute anything else, though...personal computers, ear thermometers, MRI machines, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 6, 2023 1:00:19 GMT
No offense but this sounds like a commercial for Tesla Cyber trucks. Read it with that in mind and you'll see that I am right. Sure... 🙂 Substitute anything else, though...personal computers, ear thermometers, MRI machines, etc. You know what's more fundamental in human evolution than mind? Hands: Without them we would not have created the many many artifacts that took us from the prehistoric squalor we were wallowing in as second or even third rate predators to the modern time where we have comfortable homes with modern equipment and long complex rich lives. Long live the human hands! The dolphins are said to be almost as intelligent as us and for much longer but they were missing something important that prevented them from evolving. If you'd guess it's hands, you'd be right. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 6, 2023 21:54:09 GMT
Sure... 🙂 Substitute anything else, though...personal computers, ear thermometers, MRI machines, etc. You know what's more fundamental in human evolution than mind? Hands: Without them we would not have created the many many artifacts that took us from the prehistoric squalor we were wallowing in as second or even third rate predators to the modern time where we have comfortable homes with modern equipment and long complex rich lives. Long live the human hands! The dolphins are said to be almost as intelligent as us and for much longer but they were missing something important that prevented them from evolving. If you'd guess it's hands, you'd be right. Sure...but that doesn't discount the ability of the mind to conceptualize something and bring it to reality. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 3, 2024 21:36:15 GMT
Other than that a lot of people think there is a God, I would tend to say no. There is no God. It's just an invention to keep people happy, in-line, neighborly, good, etc.
Except when it might come to a religious war. Then all bets are off.
I don't think that is the right question. The real question is whether it is beneficial to believe in something when their CANNOT be proof for it. G-d is just one example of that, but the human condition offers many other, more practical examples. Hope, for instance, is belief that things will work out positively, when no proof for that eventuality exists. Confidence is believing in yourself, when you have no evidence that what you are about to do is possible. Friendships, and Love, are believing (at least, early on) that someone is bonded to you deeply. Experience may expose that none of these examples last, that the hope was in vein, that the confidence led to failure, that the relationships didn't last, but in the moment, those unproven beliefs served the function of allowing us to accomplish feats that would otherwise be near impossible. If you can accept the UTILITY of belief without proof, then the next step is to decide what to believe in, and THAT is where G-d becomes a possibility. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on May 4, 2024 7:52:27 GMT
You know what's more fundamental in human evolution than mind? Hands: Without them we would not have created the many many artifacts that took us from the prehistoric squalor we were wallowing in as second or even third rate predators to the modern time where we have comfortable homes with modern equipment and long complex rich lives. Long live the human hands! The dolphins are said to be almost as intelligent as us and for much longer but they were missing something important that prevented them from evolving. If you'd guess it's hands, you'd be right. Sure...but that doesn't discount the ability of the mind to conceptualize something and bring it to reality. A mind alone is useless, in fact it's more of a burden than anything else. The human mind connected to the human hands is like nitroglycerine two components that are harmless separately but together (trough a chemical reaction) form an explosive combination. I remember that my most effective teachers were the ones making a lot of emphatic gestures and resorting to graphics and drawings to illustrate their points. I am speaking mostly here of science teachers, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 5, 2024 1:45:40 GMT
Sure...but that doesn't discount the ability of the mind to conceptualize something and bring it to reality. A mind alone is useless, in fact it's more of a burden than anything else. The human mind connected to the human hands is like nitroglycerine two components that are harmless separately but together (trough a chemical reaction) form an explosive combination. I remember that my most effective teachers were the ones making a lot of emphatic gestures and resorting to graphics and drawings to illustrate their points. I am speaking mostly here of science teachers, of course. Arguably a human being isn't "a human being" unless embodied, René Descartes notwithstanding. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on May 5, 2024 7:13:36 GMT
A mind alone is useless, in fact it's more of a burden than anything else. The human mind connected to the human hands is like nitroglycerine two components that are harmless separately but together (trough a chemical reaction) form an explosive combination. I remember that my most effective teachers were the ones making a lot of emphatic gestures and resorting to graphics and drawings to illustrate their points. I am speaking mostly here of science teachers, of course. Arguably a human being isn't "a human being" unless embodied, René Descartes notwithstanding. Descartes realized that the only thing we can be sure of is our own existence, the rest is speculation. However, the biggest discoverer in that area IMO is Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things." Nothing can be truer than that. |
|
