The Central Role of Consciousness in Physics

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
I'm not sure I understand your point because to me when he says this:

"On the macro level wave functions are collapsed automatically by all of the particles bouncing into them"

...he is incorrect. Particles bounce into non-collapsed wave functions as well. So whether a particle bounces into it or not is not the determining factor, only a necessary condition. The only thing in the experiments I posted that correlated perfectly with collapse is a "potential for knowledge". Keep in mind that whether this is true or not is not the issue. The issue is that at least one group of scientist don't believe that Tiberius is correct which directly contradicts what he was claiming i.e. that his view was established knowledge.

Oh. I hadn't realized that he'd been so sure of it...thought he was just correcting the idea that living (and/or conscious) beings have a special role in the quantum realm.

Would love to read these views if you can reference them.

Well, for reasons why consciousness is a macroscopic phenomenon that occurs in the brain, I suggest Consciousness Explained or Synaptic Self - though I think any simple textbook on Biology will tell you that thinking processes occur in the brain.

The fact that they occur as processes of the brain, means that they are not special at the subatomic level (since, as any high school textbook will tell you - and as I'm sure you are already aware - brains are made of cells which are made of molecules which are made of atoms...and atoms are the smallest unit that still displays the qualities of it's element...ergo, a brain is not distinguishable from a rock at the subatomic level). For an expert in the field that actually has to state that consciousness is not important for subatomic processes, there's Entanglement by Amir D. Aczel, or The bit and the pendulum: from quantum computing to M theory -- the new physics of information by Tom Siegfreid, or any textbook on QM (at least, all of the ones that I have read).

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, for reasons why consciousness is a macroscopic phenomenon that occurs in the brain, I suggest Consciousness Explained or Synaptic Self - though I think any simple textbook on Biology will tell you that thinking processes occur in the brain.

The fact that they occur as processes of the brain, means that they are not special at the subatomic level (since, as any high school textbook will tell you - and as I'm sure you are already aware - brains are made of cells which are made of molecules which are made of atoms...and atoms are the smallest unit that still displays the qualities of it's element...ergo, a brain is not distinguishable from a rock at the subatomic level). For an expert in the field that actually has to state that consciousness is not important for subatomic processes, there's Entanglement by Amir D. Aczel, or The bit and the pendulum: from quantum computing to M theory -- the new physics of information by Tom Siegfreid, or any textbook on QM (at least, all of the ones that I have read). [/B]

Of course I understand these things. But you didn't say "thinking" in your previous post. You said 'consciousness'. I guess I think of them as being different.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Of course I understand these things. But you didn't say "thinking" in your previous post. You said 'consciousness'. I guess I think of them as being different.

Oh...I hadn't considered that. Consciousness is awareness, and awareness is pretty much always in the form of thought (I can't think of when it wouldn't be (pun intended )), so I just took for granted that there wasn't much of a distinction to be made between "thought" at the subatomic level and "consciousness" at the subatomic level.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
so I just took for granted that there wasn't much of a distinction to be made between "thought" at the subatomic level and "consciousness" at the subatomic level.

OK then this explains why I haven't read anything that made the claims you have. To me, the words refer to different things. There are no philosophy/science topics titled "The problem of Thinking".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
OK then this explains why I haven't read anything that made the claims you have. To me, the words refer to different things. There are no philosophy/science topics titled "The problem of Thinking".

And yet thought is only possible in highly conscious beings - thus making the two problems completely inter-related (and rather impossible, on their own, I might add).

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
And yet thought is only possible in highly conscious beings - thus making the two problems completely inter-related (and rather impossible, on their own, I might add).

But that doesn't make them the same thing, does it? They refer to two different specific things. Inter-related doesn't mean they can be equated.

Also, what other way would you know if something is highly conscious except for its ability to demontrate thought? You assume the two are inter-related because you don't know what other property to look for. This gets back to Hypnagogue's point I believe. You have to make all sorts of assumptions about consiousness in general based on what you know about humans.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
But that doesn't make them the same thing, does it? They refer to two different specific things. Inter-related doesn't mean they can be equated.

Also, what other way would you know if something is highly conscious except for its ability to demontrate thought? You assume the two are inter-related because you don't know what other property to look for. This gets back to Hypnagogue's point I believe. You have to make all sorts of assumptions about consiousness in general based on what you know about humans.

No, I make this assumption of consciousness, because of the very definitions that have been attributed to consciousness. In order for one to be "thoughtfully aware" of their surroundings or "capable of contemplation", they must be able to think, and these are common definitions - or parts of definitions - of consciousness.

Anyway, as to their being equated, I don't just assume that they can be equated, this is a result of how they are commonly defined. Besides, the discussion is not about thought and consciousness, and how they are related, it's how consciousness can influence subatomic phenomena. And, since consciousness cannot exist without thought (by it's very definition), and thought is macroscopic phenomenon, I hold that consciousness cannot influence subatomic objects.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, I make this assumption of consciousness, because of the very definitions that have been attributed to consciousness. In order for one to be "thoughtfully aware" of their surroundings or "capable of contemplation", they must be able to think, and these are common definitions - or parts of definitions - of consciousness.

Anyway, as to their being equated, I don't just assume that they can be equated, this is a result of how they are commonly defined. Besides, the discussion is not about thought and consciousness, and how they are related, it's how consciousness can influence subatomic phenomena. And, since consciousness cannot exist without thought (by it's very definition), and thought is macroscopic phenomenon, I hold that consciousness cannot influence subatomic objects.

If thought and consciousness is only a macroscopic phenomenon and not a mircroscopic phenomenon by what process then how did a atom find its way to evolve to what we are, to ask these questions. Where do you make the dividing line between, when something thinks?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
If thought and consciousness is only a macroscopic phenomenon and not a mircroscopic phenomenon by what process then how did a atom find its way to evolve to what we are, to ask these questions. Where do you make the dividing line between, when something thinks?

But an atom does not decide to evolve, and it doesn't need to. In fact, no species ever has to decide to evolve, as natural selection and variation will cause this anyway. The atom becomes part of a molecule, because that's the way things work at the atomic level, there is an attraction which creates covalent bonds, whether the atom "likes it or not"...and since the atom doesn't like anything (it can't think) it complies and become a part of a "more evolved" structure, without every having to think about anything.

No, thought is a macroscopic process, otherwise there would be no use for a frontal cortex.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mentat
But an atom does not decide to evolve, and it doesn't need to. In fact, no species ever has to decide to evolve, as natural selection and variation will cause this anyway. The atom becomes part of a molecule, because that's the way things work at the atomic level, there is an attraction which creates covalent bonds, whether the atom "likes it or not"...and since the atom doesn't like anything (it can't think) it complies and become a part of a "more evolved" structure, without every having to think about anything.

No, thought is a macroscopic process, otherwise there would be no use for a frontal cortex.

On the most fundamental level atoms do evolve, if they did not they would always stay atoms. They evolve into molecules, this is a fact. Yes you are right there is an attraction which creates covalent bonds, that's the means they evolve but there is only one choice each time that is made of a multitude of choices. Free will decision and consciouness has to exist on the most funadamental level, we are the proof at the long end of the evolutionary chain. When you reach natural selection and variation you are getting high up into the evolutionary chain, once again just more words which mean free will decision and consciousness. As for your frontal cortex that's the last step at the moment for free will decision and consciousness.

You did not answer my question by what process then, did a atom find its way to evolve to what we are, to ask these questions. You say it does not need to yet it is a fact it did. I understand we can not fully understand each other. Is your answer then that it is just purely mechanical, purely laws and physics.

If you want the proofs read Raul O. Leguizamon, Book title in spanish> En torno al origen de la vida which means The cause of the origen of life. ISBN 987-1036-09-4

I have heard the answers> by chance, over a long time, that's the way it is, God did it all at once, heat and lighting, that's the way things work, probability, extraterestral life forms, we are an illusion ect.ect.

I can understand the spontaneous creation of something from nothing but only if there is a reason behind it.

 

[Royce]

It has been said before that the materialistic view point is at a disadvantage in trying to explain or understand metaphysical and subjective phenomena. In my opinion this is because materialistic views are upside down, viewing from the bottom, the effect and trying to decide the cause.
The physical laws and processes are viewed as prime and as the cause of everything where they are actually an effect of a cause that the materislistic view as an effect.
In my nonmaterialistic view consciousness and mind are primary. The mind of God, or the creator, or the universe, or conscious singularity, whatever you want to call it, is prime, the cause of everything else.
This is not just a religious dogmatic view point. The laws of physics are logical and ordered. They are not random or chaotic. It is easy for a materislist to say that the laws of science are the prime cause but who or what made the laws just exactly so, so that conscious life would emerge and be self aware.
The ultimate reality in my opinion is the mind of the creator, the conscious universe. The next order of reality is the mind through which the consciousness and awareness act and influence the material world. The lowest order of reality is the material world which is the result or effect of the consciousness that is or is the creator of the universe.
I have no proof nor any support other than observations from another view point. In my mind these observations are just as real and reasonable as the observations from the materialistic view point.
It is hard for a materialist to accept this view point, I know, because materialist do not even accept the existence of the subjective or metaphysical realm of reality.
How can one hope to understand or explain reality if one will only accept the existence of one third of reality and view the illusion, the effect, the material universe as the one and only and thus prime cause of everything. In my view this is upside down and backward as I have said. Materialist may say that that may be but it is all that we have to go on, all that we can know and measure as real. To which I reply as I have done so often before; yes, but that is onlky because you refuse to look at or for anything else. To you a rock is the ultimate reality and prime cause whereas to me that rock is only illusion and exists only in the mind. It is sensed and perceived as real and thus by effect is real.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Royce
It has been said before that the materialistic view point is at a disadvantage in trying to explain or understand metaphysical and subjective phenomena. In my opinion this is because materialistic views are upside down, viewing from the bottom, the effect and trying to decide the cause.
The physical laws and processes are viewed as prime and as the cause of everything where they are actually an effect of a cause that the materislistic view as an effect.
In my nonmaterialistic view consciousness and mind are primary. The mind of God, or the creator, or the universe, or conscious singularity, whatever you want to call it, is prime, the cause of everything else.
This is not just a religious dogmatic view point. The laws of physics are logical and ordered. They are not random or chaotic. It is easy for a materislist to say that the laws of science are the prime cause but who or what made the laws just exactly so, so that conscious life would emerge and be self aware.
The ultimate reality in my opinion is the mind of the creator, the conscious universe. The next order of reality is the mind through which the consciousness and awareness act and influence the material world. The lowest order of reality is the material world which is the result or effect of the consciousness that is or is the creator of the universe.
I have no proof nor any support other than observations from another view point. In my mind these observations are just as real and reasonable as the observations from the materialistic view point.
It is hard for a materialist to accept this view point, I know, because materialist do not even accept the existence of the subjective or metaphysical realm of reality.
How can one hope to understand or explain reality if one will only accept the existence of one third of reality and view the illusion, the effect, the material universe as the one and only and thus prime cause of everything. In my view this is upside down and backward as I have said. Materialist may say that that may be but it is all that we have to go on, all that we can know and measure as real. To which I reply as I have done so often before; yes, but that is onlky because you refuse to look at or for anything else. To you a rock is the ultimate reality and prime cause whereas to me that rock is only illusion and exists only in the mind. It is sensed and perceived as real and thus by effect is real.

Well put Royce.
If any materialist knows his profession to all its depth he has to realize the impossiblity of inert matter to organize itself all by itself. The long evolutionary chain of perfection from the right charge for the electron to the thought processes of us in the frontal cortex dictate that there has to be something more. Free will decision and consciouness has to exist on the most funadamental level. These qualities would have to be imbeded in the DNA that first caused it all. Materialism can explain HOW it works but not WHY it works.

Its not what we know now that counts its what we will know later. Rader

 

[Royce]

Thank you Richard. A belated welcome to the Physics Forum. We subjective idealist need all the numbers and help we can get to counter the rampant objective materialists here.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Rader
If thought and consciousness is only a macroscopic phenomenon and not a mircroscopic phenomenon by what process then how did a atom find its way to evolve to what we are, to ask these questions.

Aggregations of atoms form larger structures primarily by electromagnetic processes.

Where do you make the dividing line between, when something thinks?

To this date, no one has successfully drawn such a line. But to ascribe the impetus of the atoms to form such aggregations to something like human consciousness is to stretch the concept of 'consciousness' beyond any usefulness.

On the most fundamental level atoms do evolve, if they did not they would always stay atoms. They evolve into molecules, this is a fact. Yes you are right there is an attraction which creates covalent bonds, that's the means they evolve but there is only one choice each time that is made of a multitude of choices. Free will decision and consciouness has to exist on the most funadamental level, we are the proof at the long end of the evolutionary chain.

The part in red simply does not follow from the evidence you presented. There is no reason to think that free will is involved in electromagnetic processes, no matter how many such processes are strung together in a sequence to result in a rock, a star, a tree, or a human being. In fact, the evidence actually implies the contrary position: that free will is not a facet of the microscopic world. That is, the predictability of the results of experiments implies that the forces under which aggregations of matter form are dumb forces. You will not find such consistency in any social science experiment, in which at least the illusion of free will among human subjects is manifest.

You (edit: Mentat) did not answer my question by what process then, did a atom find its way to evolve to what we are, to ask these questions.

I thought he did answer it by mentioning covalent bonding, but in case it is not clear I'll say it again: The processes are primarily electromagnetic.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Rader
If any materialist knows his profession to all its depth he has to realize the impossiblity of inert matter to organize itself all by itself.

Why?

The long evolutionary chain of perfection from the right charge for the electron to the thought processes of us in the frontal cortex dictate that there has to be something more.

Yes, but that "something more" is different for the materialist than it is for the idealist. For the latter, the "something more" has to be this unintelligible, unverifiable, unfalsifiable concept called "god", an ad hoc assumption with absolutely no evidentiary basis. For the materialist, the "something more" is a better scientific theory, perhaps to be discovered by future generations.

Free will decision and consciouness has to exist on the most funadamental level. These qualities would have to be imbeded in the DNA that first caused it all.

So you keep asserting, but I see no valid argument in favor of it. As far as I can see, your entire case is based on the fallacy of composition. You seem to be arguing along the same lines as:

"Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms. Therefore, cats are colorless."

which is not valid reasoning.

Materialism can explain HOW it works but not WHY it works.

We all know that. A materialist would greet this statement with a great big "so what?" That is because the materialist knows that the universe is not known a priori, but by observation. When one takes that perspective of epistemology of science, it becomes clear we think that such "why?" questions are unanswerable. Idealists, on the other hand, mistakenly assume that the universe is known a priori, and that one should be able to answer these questions just by reasoning them out. Of course, that is false, so idealists fabricate this concept of a "super mind" and call it god, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support such a notion.

The above quote from you seems to stem from the flawed concepts of idealism. Since materialists do not have that hangup, it is not a problem for us.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Tom

We all know that. A materialist would greet this statement with a great big "so what?" That is because the materialist knows that the universe is not known a priori, but by observation. When one takes that perspective of epistemology of science, it becomes clear we think that such "why?" questions are unanswerable. Idealists, on the other hand, mistakenly assume that the universe is known a priori, and that one should be able to answer these questions just by reasoning them out. Of course, that is false, so idealists fabricate this concept of a "super mind" and call it god, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support such a notion.

If I, as an Idealist, think that the "why/" question is the most important question that can be asked; and, I answer the question, at least in part, that the answer is that all of the material universe was created as it was and all that has happened as it has for the purpose of bringing about intelligent, conscious, self aware, life and to support and maintain that life, I can then taking this as a hypothisis and work backwards.
This of course presupposes that there is purpose and intent to the universe. I eventually reach the most fundamental laws and theories of physics and say that an electron, whatever that may actually be must have the properties that it has to make life possible. This is a simplistic example, of course; but, I'm sure that you can get the drift of what I'm saying.
This way of viewing things of course implys a conscious rational mind in charge that started it all in motion after making the laws and properties so that it would all work. It leads of course to God or a god or creator or conscious universe.
I am aware that this can be called circular reasoning as the conclusion is implied in the premise. It is the same process however as materialist use in that they start out saying there is no God nor any purpose to the universe. Then looking only at the material universe say that they see no evidence of a god or purpose. Materialist usually, just as you did, leave out the words "physical" "material" and "objective" when they say that they find no evidence. There is evidence. There are tons of evidence or an ancidotal and experiential nature that is subjective not physical, material or objective.

We seem to have come full circle as this was my main bone of contention and main point in my first number of posts when I first joined the PF's. I still think that the rift is only one of viewpoint and/or opinion and not an irreconcilable difference in reality.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Royce
If I, as an Idealist, think that the "why/" question is the most important question that can be asked; and, I answer the question, at least in part, that the answer is that all of the material universe was created as it was and all that has happened as it has for the purpose of bringing about intelligent, conscious, self aware, life and to support and maintain that life, I can then taking this as a hypothisis and work backwards.

But it is a completely fabricated, ad hoc hypothesis. The thing that is immediately evident is the material universe, not the Super Mind that you postulate to be behind it. You take a concept called 'other minds', something that we only know of by observing the behavior of 'other bodies'. You then--for no apparent reason--detatch the concept of 'other mind' from 'other body' and endow it with superhuman powers to come up with the concept of god. This is totally implausible until one can demonstrate the existence of even a single brainless mind, let alone one that it all powerful.

This of course presupposes that there is purpose and intent to the universe. I eventually reach the most fundamental laws and theories of physics and say that an electron, whatever that may actually be must have the properties that it has to make life possible. This is a simplistic example, of course; but, I'm sure that you can get the drift of what I'm saying.

This is the same fallacy of composition that I already pointed out.

I am aware that this can be called circular reasoning as the conclusion is implied in the premise. It is the same process however as materialist use in that they start out saying there is no God nor any purpose to the universe.

A materialist need not say that there is no god (and indeed I do not say that). A materialist only takes that which is immediately evident and does not assume the existence of things that are not immediately evident.

Then looking only at the material universe say that they see no evidence of a god or purpose. Materialist usually, just as you did, leave out the words "physical" "material" and "objective" when they say that they find no evidence.

I left those qualifiers out becuase when I say "evidence", I take it as understood that there is no such thing as "evidence" that does not fall into a category of physical, material, or obectively verifiable.

There is evidence. There are tons of evidence or an ancidotal and experiential nature that is subjective not physical, material or objective.

That is only evidence to you. To say that such subjective verification counts as evidence is to distort the idea of evidence beyond all usefulness, because it is only evident to one person. Furthermore, my experiential "evidence" and yours do not agree. So whose, then is to be accepted? The only possible answer is, "My evidence is accepted by me, and yours is accepted by you."

That is a very important point, and a fatal flaw of your idealism.

The metaphysics of your idealism insists that absolute truths can be ascertained by reason alone in the form of a priori knowledge of reality. But the epistemology of your idealism must necessarily include "evidence" that is only subjectively verifiable to support its assumptions about the mind. Without some objective standard for distinguishing between my "evidence" and your "evidence", the attainment of absolute truths--which must be true for everyone---is impossible.

Thus, your idealism is completely incoherent.

 

[Rader]

Tom i figured you would show up sooner or later to back Mentate. Thanks for answering.

Why?

Because nothing has evolved into something that realizez there is something greater than I. Thats the answer.

Yes, but that "something more" is different for the materialist than it is for the idealist. For the latter, the "something more" has to be this unintelligible, unverifiable, unfalsifiable concept called "god", an ad hoc assumption with absolutely no evidentiary basis. For the materialist, the "something more" is a better scientific theory, perhaps to be discovered by future generations.

The answer will be the same for you or I. Enate matter if you like has organized itself into conscioussly questioning its beginnings.
Future generations will know more and more of the HOW but the WHY will not change.

So you keep asserting, but I see no valid argument in favor of it. As far as I can see, your entire case is based on the fallacy of composition. You seem to be arguing along the same lines as:

By what means is it possible then?

"Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms. Therefore, cats are colorless."

How did you come up with that statement. I would say that atoms are colorless until they find a match, and when thy do, the cats made of those atoms would be all colors.
Seriously the standard model shows us why the sky is blue and that atoms do have colors but only because our level of conscious perception allows it.

We all know that. A materialist would greet this statement with a great big "so what?" That is because the materialist knows that the universe is not known a priori, but by observation. When one takes that perspective of epistemology of science, it becomes clear we think that such "why?" questions are unanswerable. Idealists, on the other hand, mistakenly assume that the universe is known a priori, and that one should be able to answer these questions just by reasoning them out. Of course, that is false, so idealists fabricate this concept of a "super mind" and call it god, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support such a notion.

I do not think we are getting anywhere, you arguments for you are as valid as mine are for me. But take this for a thought. That conscious intellengece evolved from inerte nothing for no reason is in a materialistic standpoint ilogical.

The above quote from you seems to stem from the flawed concepts of idealism. Since materialists do not have that hangup, it is not a problem for us.

The above quote from me seems to stem from the belief of a creator which for me is the only sane reason we are talking to each other. I have no hangup.I have enjoyed exchanging ideas with you.

Nothing the human mind can think will not be some day part of the total reality. Rader

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Tom
Aggregations of atoms form larger structures primarily by electromagnetic processes.

To this date, no one has successfully drawn such a line. But to ascribe the impetus of the atoms to form such aggregations to something like human consciousness is to stretch the concept of 'consciousness' beyond any usefulness.

The part in red simply does not follow from the evidence you presented. There is no reason to think that free will is involved in electromagnetic processes, no matter how many such processes are strung together in a sequence to result in a rock, a star, a tree, or a human being. In fact, the evidence actually implies the contrary position: that free will is not a facet of the microscopic world. That is, the predictability of the results of experiments implies that the forces under which aggregations of matter form are dumb forces. You will not find such consistency in any social science experiment, in which at least the illusion of free will among human subjects is manifest.

I thought he did answer it by mentioning covalent bonding, but in case it is not clear I'll say it again: The processes are primarily electromagnetic.

You would have to agree that free will decision and human consciousness is a human and only human attrubute? I do not wish to find consistency in any social science experiment. I have a free will and can consciously decide what to believe. Human understanding and conscioussness is ever evolving. What is true today was not yesterday and will not be tomorrow. Not the whole truth but our truth. Ask Copernicus.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Tom
But it is a completely fabricated, ad hoc hypothesis. The thing that is immediately evident is the material universe,

The thing that is immediately evident is that the only evidence that we have of the material world is subjective perceptions of our sensory inputs which are know to be limited and fallible even with the best instruments to augment our senses. Your evidence is no more substantial than the subjective evidence of my personal experiences and the testemony of other who say that they have seen the same things. Just as your evidence must be collaborated so must mine.
You take the word of other scientists. I take the word of other metaphysiscists or idealist as well.

not the Super Mind that you postulate to be behind it. You take a concept called 'other minds', something that we only know of by observing the behavior of 'other bodies'. You then--for no apparent reason--detatch the concept of 'other mind' from 'other body' and endow it with superhuman powers to come up with the concept of god. This is totally implausible until one can demonstrate the existence of even a single brainless mind, let alone one that it all powerful.

I did not say that the "other (super) mind" did not have a body. That is you assumption. I do not know if it, God, does or does not have a body whether material or immaterial. Some thing that the universe itself may be the superminds body.
It is no more implausable than the Big Bang or string hypothisis as there is no known way to test either or varify predictions no matter how well the math fits and supports them. It is no more unintuitive or weird than QM.

A materialist need not say that there is no god (and indeed I do not say that). A materialist only takes that which is immediately evident and does not assume the existence of things that are not immediately evident.

Your assumption is that your sensory inputs and you subjective perceptions are true and real, more true and real than my subjective perceptions of the metaphysical. This is simple bias. Your view is that the material is real and prime, the ultimate reality; and' metaphysics is illusion. My view point is that the metaphysical is real ad prime, the ultimate reality; and, the material is the illusion. Who, if either of us, is right? I don't know any more than you do.

I left those qualifiers out becuase when I say "evidence", I take it as understood that there is no such thing as "evidence" that does not fall into a category of physical, material, or obectively verifiable.

Tom there are thousands of books, articles, stories and first hand tesemony of personal experience with methaphysics and God as well as my own personal experience. Since they collaborate my experienc I am not willing to dismiss them as not real evidence. Again the above statement is pure materialistic bias. "It aint so unless I say its so." It is the very thing that keeps any materialist from seeing anything that they don't want to see or have to admit might be real.
"If I don't accept or look at any such evidence then I can honestly say that there is no evidence." This is the open mind of a true scientist?

That is only evidence to you. To say that such subjective verification counts as evidence is to distort the idea of evidence beyond all usefulness, because it is only evident to one person. Furthermore, my experiential "evidence" and yours do not agree. So whose, then is to be accepted? The only possible answer is, "My evidence is accepted by me, and yours is accepted by you."

The same rule of evidence apply to my subjective evidence as applies to your subjective evidence. The only differece is that I admit that my evidence is anecdotal and subjective where yours is carveed in granite and came down from the mount of objective materialism in the name of Science. Need I remind you that science has had its share of mistakes error and fraud just as any other human endevore.

The metaphysics of your idealism insists that absolute truths can be ascertained by reason alone in the form of a priori knowledge of reality. But the epistemology of your idealism must necessarily include "evidence" that is only subjectively verifiable to support its assumptions about the mind. Without some objective standard for distinguishing between my "evidence" and your "evidence", the attainment of absolute truths--which must be true for everyone---is impossible.

The point is, is that there is no conflict, no contradiction between the metaphysical and the physical. One does not exclude the other unless a materialist excludes the metaphysical. You do not have to except any absolute truths, there are no absolute truths in science.
Metaphysics presents absolute truths and we try to apply it to our lives. It isn't mandatory. It is just there. If it is of use to you, use it, if not, don't. That is your choice.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
On the most fundamental level atoms do evolve, if they did not they would always stay atoms. They evolve into molecules, this is a fact. Yes you are right there is an attraction which creates covalent bonds, that's the means they evolve but there is only one choice each time that is made of a multitude of choices. Free will decision and consciouness has to exist on the most funadamental level, we are the proof at the long end of the evolutionary chain. When you reach natural selection and variation you are getting high up into the evolutionary chain, once again just more words which mean free will decision and consciousness. As for your frontal cortex that's the last step at the moment for free will decision and consciousness.

You did not answer my question by what process then, did a atom find its way to evolve to what we are, to ask these questions. You say it does not need to yet it is a fact it did. I understand we can not fully understand each other. Is your answer then that it is just purely mechanical, purely laws and physics.

Yes, it is all governed by the laws of physics. There is no choice necessary since it is a known fact that all particles follow the path of least resistance.

If you want the proofs read Raul O. Leguizamon, Book title in spanish> En torno al origen de la vida which means The cause of the origen of life. ISBN 987-1036-09-4

Usted habla Espanol? Yo soy Puerto Riceno nativo, pero vivo en lost Estados Unidos, y hablo Ingles mejor que hablo Espanol.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
Tom i figured you would show up sooner or later to back Mentate.

And he had to come and do such an awesome job of it, too . Makes me look like an amateur .

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
Because nothing has evolved into something that realizez there is something greater than I. Thats the answer.

How does this answer Tom's question? He was asking why you think a materialist has to accept that matter can organize itself on its own, without the electromagnetic force.

The answer will be the same for you or I. Enate matter if you like has organized itself into conscioussly questioning its beginnings.
Future generations will know more and more of the HOW but the WHY will not change.

The "why" may not even exist. You have given us no reason to believe that there is such a thing as "the 'why'".

By what means is it possible then?

Didn't he already tell you that it happens do to the electromagnetic force? I'm sorry, but I just can't see how you could have missed this.

How did you come up with that statement. I would say that atoms are colorless until they find a match, and when thy do, the cats made of those atoms would be all colors.

But you would be creating an ad hoc hypothesis, which violates Occam's Razor and the way that Logic is supposed to be done.

Seriously the standard model shows us why the sky is blue and that atoms do have colors but only because our level of conscious perception allows it.

The standard model shows us nothing of the kind. The standard model only tells us what different kinds of particles exist.

I do not think we are getting anywhere, you arguments for you are as valid as mine are for me. But take this for a thought. That conscious intellengece evolved from inerte nothing for no reason is in a materialistic standpoint ilogical.

Not at all. In fact, consciousness could not have evolved for a reason, because reason is only assigned by conscious beings, and thus the conscious being always exists before any reasons.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
The thing that is immediately evident is that the only evidence that we have of the material world is subjective perceptions of our sensory inputs which are know to be limited and fallible even with the best instruments to augment our senses.

Wrong, the thing that is immediately evident is that which we percieve, not how we percieve it. That is added later, which is what (I think) Tom was trying to explain to you.

I did not say that the "other (super) mind" did not have a body. That is you assumption. I do not know if it, God, does or does not have a body whether material or immaterial. Some thing that the universe itself may be the superminds body.
It is no more implausable than the Big Bang or string hypothisis as there is no known way to test either or varify predictions no matter how well the math fits and supports them. It is no more unintuitive or weird than QM.

Obviously you are not educated in these fields (I mean no offense, simply an observation), since if you were you would know that these theories are substantiated by enormous bodies of evidence (except for the string theory, but we're still working on that one ), and that denying that weakens your side immeasurably.

Your assumption is that your sensory inputs and you subjective perceptions are true and real, more true and real than my subjective perceptions of the metaphysical. This is simple bias. Your view is that the material is real and prime, the ultimate reality; and' metaphysics is illusion.

But, really, that is not a belief at all, it is the lack of a belief. Much like atheism (which is the choice not to take for granted that god exists; but also not taking for granted that he doesn't), it satisfies Occam's Razor much better than those that have gone "a step further" by making an assumption. You see, Tom has not taken for granted anything but what can be observed. While you, OTOH, have assumed that there is a metaphysical part to this, which we can't observe (and thus can't show to exist at all).

Seriously, ask a child who was raised completely separate from civilization, and see whether he tells you of the things that exist separate from him, or instead, tells you of some metaphysical mind which he possesses that processes all of the incoming data.

My view point is that the metaphysical is real ad prime, the ultimate reality; and, the material is the illusion. Who, if either of us, is right? I don't know any more than you do.

But your viewpoint is less "valid", by the standards of logic (and science, I might add).

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mentat
And he had to come and do such an awesome job of it, too . Makes me look like an amateur .

Do not take it so personal, nuke me if you like.

If you want the proofs read Raul O. Leguizamon, Book title in spanish> En torno al origen de la vida which means The cause of the origen of life. ISBN 987-1036-09-4

I read and write Spanish or English but English is my first language, as i was born in Chicago. If you can read the book it is worth the effort. Not sure you can get it in English, I read it in Spanish.
Hasta luego, buenas noches señores
Adios

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
Wrong, the thing that is immediately evident is that which we percieve, not how we percieve it. That is added later, which is what (I think) Tom was trying to explain to you.

Please read that part of my post again. You say I am wrong then say the same thing that I did. First we perceive. All perceptions are subjective. perceptions in this case are interpretation of our sensory inputs.


[QOUT]
Obviously you are not educated in these fields (I mean no offense, simply an observation), since if you were you would know that these theories are substantiated by enormous bodies of evidence (except for the string theory, but we're still working on that one ), and that denying that weakens your side immeasurably.[/QUOTE]

We have been over this before, Mentat. There is no evidence that the Big Bang actually took place. The only real evidence that supports it is the value of the background microwave radiation detected by COBE
is the same or nearly so as it would be if the BB did take place about when we think that it would. If you have other hard evidence of the BB then please direct me to it because I have yet to be able to find it. I base my comment about string theory on what little I have read and mainly on the NOVA program that I watched Tuesday evening called the Elegant Universe hosted by Brian Green. Those are the only two theories that I mentioned anything about. So maybe you had better tell Brian Greene and John Gribbin that they are not educated enough in those subjects to make comments.

But, really, that is not a belief at all, it is the lack of a belief. Much like atheism (which is the choice not to take for granted that god exists; but also not taking for granted that he doesn't), it satisfies Occam's Razor much better than those that have gone "a step further" by making an assumption. You see, Tom has not taken for granted anything but what can be observed. While you, OTOH, have assumed that there is a metaphysical part to this, which we can't observe (and thus can't show to exist at all).

Nobody is talking about beliefs here. We are discussing views or stances. But, Tom has made an assumption, the assumption that his perceptions of the objective material world are real and true and that any evidence other than objective material evidence is not evidenvce at all. I disagree and dispute this statement.

Seriously, ask a child who was raised completely separate from civilization, and see whether he tells you of the things that exist separate from him, or instead, tells you of some metaphysical mind which he possesses that processes all of the incoming data.

I can't ask a child who was raised completely separate from civilization. None are alive that I know of and the only such child that I know of could not speak at all. If you are talking about primative tribes people, they usually have a rich mythology and religious beliefs and believe far more in the metaphysical than we do.
The first time I came across such a concept as the objective material world being an illusion was hering about the
Austrailian Aborigenes calling this the "Dream Time."

My views are less valid onlyif one perscribs to the assumptions of the objective materialist view. From my view point those assumption are not valid or logical. Science has nothing to do with this discussion as science does not have anything to say abot philosopy or meataphysics at all.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Royce
The thing that is immediately evident is that the only evidence that we have of the material world is subjective perceptions of our sensory inputs which are know to be limited and fallible even with the best instruments to augment our senses. Your evidence is no more substantial than the subjective evidence of my personal experiences and the testemony of other who say that they have seen the same things.

The evidence that is collected about the natural world by scientific investigation is certainly more substantial than your personal experiences. Your personal experiences cannot be verified or falsified to anyone but you. Furthermore, your noting that any evidence gathering endeavor is "limited and fallible" only serves to strengthen my point. It is precisely because the gathering of evidence is so limited that the most objective standard must be sought after. And it is because scientists seek that objective standard that there is so little variation in the evidence we collect. The same cannot be said of those who use personal experience as evidence. Put two philosophers in a room who use such a sloppy standard, and they will fight like cats and dogs.

Just as your evidence must be collaborated so must mine.
You take the word of other scientists. I take the word of other metaphysiscists or idealist as well.

This is so inaccurate, I can't believe you even said it, especially after being at Physics Forums for so long. Scientists have no need to "take the word of other scientists". Our evidence is objectively verifiable. That means that any scientist can go into a laboratory or observatory, do the same experiment, and get the same result, to within some experimental error.

I did not say that the "other (super) mind" did not have a body. That is you assumption. I do not know if it, God, does or does not have a body whether material or immaterial.

You don't get it.

What you do say is that there is a some "super mind", and you do this without having ever observed the behavior of the "other body". For that there is no justification, and that was my point.

Some thing that the universe itself may be the superminds body.
It is no more implausable than the Big Bang or string hypothisis as there is no known way to test either or varify predictions no matter how well the math fits and supports them. It is no more unintuitive or weird than QM.

As it stands, the above is false. The Big Bang theory, string theory, and QM are all both verifiable and falsifiable. Your idealism is neither. Perhaps you would like to cast it in a form that is both verifiable and falsifiable, by something other than personal experience? By some test an independent observer can do, and on whose results can concur with you?

Until you do that, your idealism does not have even a sliver of the plausibility of any of those scientific theories.

Your assumption is that your sensory inputs and you subjective perceptions are true and real, more true and real than my subjective perceptions of the metaphysical. This is simple bias.

No, it is not "simple bias". Data taken by the senses, and by extension, scientific instruments, is reproducible and objectively verifiable. Furthermore, it is consistent with my more fundamental assumption that reality is known a posteriori, in contrast to the idealist assumption that reality is known a priori. I do not reject the latter out of bias, I reject it because it has consistently failed to produce any insight into the workings of the natural world. Until someone shows me that the universe can be understood apart from observation, then I will change my mind.

Your view is that the material is real and prime, the ultimate reality; and' metaphysics is illusion. My view point is that the metaphysical is real ad prime, the ultimate reality; and, the material is the illusion. Who, if either of us, is right? I don't know any more than you do.

It is not that I reject metaphysics. It is that I reject *your* metaphysics. That is, I reject idealist ontology in general as a way to reason about reality, and I reject your idealism in particular for its logical incoherence. I pointed this out in my last post.

Tom there are thousands of books, articles, stories and first hand tesemony of personal experience with methaphysics and God as well as my own personal experience. Since they collaborate my experienc I am not willing to dismiss them as not real evidence. Again the above statement is pure materialistic bias.

The above statement makes it clear that the bias is on your part.

You take the "thousands of books" that agree with your idealism as evidence. So what do you do with the "thousands of books" that don't agree with it?

The fact is, those books you mention do not mean anything without an objectively verifiable way for anyone to test them.

"It aint so unless I say its so." It is the very thing that keeps any materialist from seeing anything that they don't want to see or have to admit might be real. "If I don't accept or look at any such evidence then I can honestly say that there is no evidence." This is the open mind of a true scientist?

LOL, you sure do know how to spin things to make yourself look good!

You are talking about subjective, anecdotal, experiential "evidence". How on Earth could I possible "look" at your "evidence" when I do not have access to your mental states?

The point is, is that there is no conflict, no contradiction between the metaphysical and the physical.

What are you talking about?

I did not say that there is a contradiction between "the metaphysical and the physical", I said that there is a contradiction between "Royce's metaphysics and Royce's epistemology", and I presented a good argument to back it up.

Here it is again:

The metaphysics of your idealism insists that absolute truths can be ascertained by reason alone in the form of a priori knowledge of reality. But the epistemology of your idealism must necessarily include "evidence" that is only subjectively verifiable to support its assumptions about the mind. Without some objective standard for distinguishing between my "evidence" and your "evidence", the attainment of absolute truths--which must be true for everyone---is impossible.

Do you see the contradiction now?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Royce
But, Tom has made an assumption, the assumption that his perceptions of the objective material world are real and true and that any evidence other than objective material evidence is not evidenvce at all. I disagree and dispute this statement.

You have not disputed the statement, you have simply denied it. So, here is your chance to dispute it:

Royce, tell me, how can you know something apart from perceiving it? And furthermore, how can I know that you know something, apart from verifying your perceptions with my own?

Until you or anyone else can answer that satisfactorily, I'm sticking with what I said.

My views are less valid onlyif one perscribs to the assumptions of the objective materialist view.

Actually, I argued that your views are not logical even if one adopts only your premises, precisely because your views are not consistent with each other. Maybe you will have something to say about that after re-reading my argument that pits your metaphysics against your epistemology.

From my view point those assumption are not valid or logical.

Since you have yet to show that materialism is logically invalid, this assertion is floating in a total vacuum right now.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Rader
Because nothing has evolved into something that realizez there is something greater than I. Thats the answer.

That is no answer.

Your original statement spoke of the impossibility of such a thing occurring. Your statement here speaks of the uniqueness of it occurring. One does not follow from the other.

Try again?

The answer will be the same for you or I. Enate matter if you like has organized itself into conscioussly questioning its beginnings.
Future generations will know more and more of the HOW but the WHY will not change.

Since I think the "WHY" question is unanswerable, that doesn't bother me.

By what means is it possible then?

By means of electromagnetic processes. Ask me again, and I'll tell you the same.

Tom: "Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms. Therefore, cats are colorless."

Rader: How did you come up with that statement.

My point was not about atoms, colors, or cats, but about the fallacy of composition. To avoid getting hung up on irrelevant details, I'll change the argument.

The fallacy of composition works two ways:

1. Constituents {x_i} have property p. Composite X is composed of constituents {x_i}. Therefore, Composite X has property p.

Now one could argue, using the above schema, that since quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons have the property of being not devoid of consciousness, and since the brain is composed of those constituents, then the brain is also not devoid of consciousness. The conclusion is true, but the schema does not make the premise true.

A counterexample is that since sodium and chlorine are have the property of being dangerous for humans to consume, and since sodium chloride is made of sodium and chlorine, that sodium chloride is also dangerous for humans to consume. Here we use the schema with true premises and a false conclusion, so it cannot be valid.

2. Composite X has property p. Composite X is composed of constituents {x_i}. Therefore, each consistuent {x_i} has property p.

One could argue, using the above schema, that since brains are composed of quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons, and that since brains have the property of being conscious, that the quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons that compose the brain also have the property of being conscious. Is this valid reasoning? Let's see, using different premises.

This post that Rader is reading is composed of pixels, and the post has the property of containing a message from Tom. Therefore, each pixel has the property of containing the message from Tom. Here again, we use the schema with true premises and a false conclusion, so it too cannot be valid.

As far as I can see, your arguments fall along those lines.

I do not think we are getting anywhere, you arguments for you are as valid as mine are for me.

You have a basic misunderstanding about logic. Whether or not an argument is logically valid is not up for debate. I may disagree with the truth of your premises, but if you use valid logic I can and will recognize and acknowledge it.

But you simply have not used valid logic.

But take this for a thought. That conscious intellengece evolved from inerte nothing for no reason is in a materialistic standpoint ilogical.

Rader, this is not how philosophy is done. This is just an empty assertion with no argument to back it up. It is not food for thought, it is junk food for non-thought.

edit: fixed italics bracket

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Rader
You would have to agree that free will decision and human consciousness is a human and only human attrubute?

Let's break up your compound statement.

"Free will decision is a human and only human attribute."

I am not certain that it is a human attribute at all. Materialist models of consciousness have been produced that state that human brains have enough bandwidth (if you will) to give the illusion of free will decision. However, I would not agree that this thing you speak of, whether it is real or illusion, is exclusive to humans. I cannot, since I do not have access to the mental states of any other being, including those of other organisms.

"Human consciousness is a human and only [color==blue]human[/color] attribute."

I would have to agree that this is true by definition.

I do not wish to find consistency in any social science experiment. I have a free will and can consciously decide what to believe. Human understanding and conscioussness is ever evolving. What is true today was not yesterday and will not be tomorrow. Not the whole truth but our truth. Ask Copernicus.

How does this have anything to do with the issues on the table?

edit: fixed color bracket

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Tom
The evidence that is collected about the natural world by scientific investigation is certainly more substantial than your personal experiences. Your personal experiences cannot be verified or falsified to anyone but you. Furthermore, your noting that any evidence gathering endeavor is "limited and fallible" only serves to strengthen my point. It is precisely because the gathering of evidence is so limited that the most objective standard must be sought after. And it is because scientists seek that objective standard that there is so little variation in the evidence we collect. The same cannot be said of those who use personal experience as evidence. Put two philosophers in a room who use such a sloppy standard, and they will fight like cats and dogs.

While I agree that my personal experience can not be verified of falsified by anyone but myself, the personal experiences of many can be compared and act as support. I did not come up with this view out of a vacuum or on my own as an individual. It is only after I found collaboration from outside sources did I begin to think that these views may have some validity. Nor am I a pure idealist. My views are idealistic and metaphysical in nature so for convience I use those terms. I do not doubt the value of science or the scientific method nor do I doubt the reality of the objective material world. I say that the same rules of evidence or the same strict adherence to such rules can be used to verify the common features of subjective experience.

This is so inaccurate, I can't believe you even said it, especially after being at Physics Forums for so long. Scientists have no need to "take the word of other scientists". Our evidence is objectively verifiable. That means that any scientist can go into a laboratory or observatory, do the same experiment, and get the same result, to within some experimental error.

No it is not inaccurate. Only a handful of scientist have the means and opportunity to actually perform the experiments and verify the data. Once collaboration is found from independant sources then there is no need to do this over and over again. others read the published works and take the word of the authors that it is correct and accurate or sometimes find errors and/or mistakes. Books are published and the subject is taught in schools and colleges whether right or not. Much of what I was taught in high school and college has since been proven wrong but at the time it was the accepted scientific knowledge at the time.
I would assume that you like the rest or most of use get your information by reading books, articles and papers. I seriousdly doubt that you yourself verify scientifically everything that you accept as true or correct. It that not taking other peoples word for the truth. Yes some scientist can and do verify or disprove another scientists work. You and anybody else can also test what I and others have written of what we have "seen" of "found." It may take a few dozen years of meditation and study but then so does scientific study.

You don't get it.

What you do say is that there is a some "super mind", and you do this without having ever observed the behavior of the "other body". For that there is no justification, and that was my point.

Yes I do get it. I do observe in a purely subjective way this super mind that I call God and the Oneness of the universe. It is not just my personal experience but that of many, a number of them members here a PF that describe the same phenomenon in almost the same words.
I never wrote of the experiences of mine until others asked me specifically or all of us generally and others started writing of their own experiences. With this collaboration and affermation I began to form my views and began writing about them.

As it stands, the above is false. The Big Bang theory, string theory, and QM are all both verifiable and falsifiable. Your idealism is neither. Perhaps you would like to cast it in a form that is both verifiable and falsifiable, by something other than personal experience? By some test an independent observer can do, and on whose results can concur with you?

It may be my ignorance or my misunderstanding but here I think that you and mentat are wrong. From what I have read and seen as last as last Tuesday ther is no way to test string theory yet and no way to test its predictions again according to PBS's NOVA and author/host Brian Greene. The Big Bang theory is based on the present expansion of the universe played backwards to its ultimate conclusion. The COBE supports this with the measurement of background radiation but none of this is hard scientific evidence that proves anything nor does the BB make any scientific predictions. If I am wrong in this Please direct me to a site or book that explains or shows this differently.

Until you do that, your idealism does not have even a sliver of the plausibility of any of those scientific theories.

But, Tom, I am not the only one nor am I the only one to claim any of this as I have said before. I invite you or anyone else to do the study and work and take the time and make the effort to verify it for yourself. Your experience wll be different than mine or anyone else's but it will all so be remarkably alike in very important ways.

The rest of our pos is much the same. This view of mine is a work in progress and is not complete. I started with a few observations
of reality different from the objective material reality. I am trying to bring it al together in a coherent form. It is almost impossible to argue its points with someone who is an objective materialist. It does however make me think and try to get it more coherent and rational. For this I thank all of you.
While I am not playing devils advocate, I am not an idealist nor am I a materialist but some of both. I believe that the metahysical is real just as real if not more real than the physical.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Royce
I say that the same rules of evidence or the same strict adherence to such rules can be used to verify the common features of subjective experience.

The rules of evidence that apply to objectively verifiable evidence are such that, when one finds evidence that disagrees with one's viewpoint, one changes one's viewpoint.

The rules of evidence that apply to subjectively verifiable evidence are such that, when one finds evidence that disagrees with one's viewpoint, one rejects the offending evidence out of hand.

They are not the same!

No it is not inaccurate. Only a handful of scientist have the means and opportunity to actually perform the experiments and verify the data.

(snip)

I would assume that you like the rest or most of use get your information by reading books, articles and papers. I seriousdly doubt that you yourself verify scientifically everything that you accept as true or correct. It that not taking other peoples word for the truth. Yes some scientist can and do verify or disprove another scientists work.

Right, I have not done every experiment that can be done. But during my education I have done a significant number of them, and I have analyzed plenty of data taken by others. I have done enough experimental work to know the difference between objective and subjective evidence.

You and anybody else can also test what I and others have written of what we have "seen" of "found." It may take a few dozen years of meditation and study but then so does scientific study.

There is no way for me to test your personal experience. Furthermore, even if I did "test" it and come to agree with you, I would have to do so only by completely disregarding the subjective "evidence" of equally sincere people who reach the opposite conclusion. This is the same problem I keep pointing out.

It may be my ignorance or my misunderstanding but here I think that you and mentat are wrong.

Yes, it is your misunderstanding. I said that those theories are verifiable and falsifiable. That does not mean that they have been tested, it means that their claims are of the logical structure that they can be tested, when technology catches up. Your claims, on the other hand, can only be verified or falsified definitively when humans develop the ability to directly access each other's mental states, as well as the mental states of this "god" you speak of.

But, Tom, I am not the only one nor am I the only one to claim any of this as I have said before. I invite you or anyone else to do the study and work and take the time and make the effort to verify it for yourself. Your experience wll be different than mine or anyone else's but it will all so be remarkably alike in very important ways.

And as I keep saying, there are plenty of people who have "found" the opposite conclusion by subjective experience. You can only claim that you have "evidence" by disregarding that.

While I am not playing devils advocate, I am not an idealist nor am I a materialist but some of both. I believe that the metahysical is real just as real if not more real than the physical.

I still don't know what you mean by "metaphysical". Metaphysics is not about some fuzzy glowing "energy" floating around out there, it is a human discipline that seeks to make sense of the world around us.

In any case, you still have not addressed the most important part of my posts, namely the argument that your whole position is internally inconsistent. I don't reject your view merely because it starts from different premises as mine. I also reject it because it is illogical in and of itself.

 

[Mumeishi]

Tom,

You have my respect for your intelligent and level-headed critique of Idealist nonsense.

Keep up the good work!

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
... Idealist nonsense.

Your very nice animated logo shows that reality has many ways of expression. Thinking, consiousness and all mental processes are of course also 'energy'.
I think Royce refers to that.

Tom is right that personal experience is not exchangeable.

And as said you have a nice avatar! You made it yourself?

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by pelastration
Your very nice animated logo shows that reality has many ways of expression.

Absolutely - and some of its manifestations are even more incredible than my avatar!

Thinking, consiousness and all mental processes are of course also 'energy'.

I think this is a source of philosphical confusion, in terms of the 'hard problem of consciousness'. The brain is ultimately energy, but the mind is not identical to the brain. Mental states are what the brain (and thus the enrgy) is doing. But that's another topic.

I think Royce refers to that.

Where?

And as said you have a nice avatar! You made it yourself?

I wish I had. I found it elsewhere, and resized it, reduced the number of colours and halved the frame rate to make it permissable here. I couldn't resist it.