2 of 7
2
Sam Drops the Ball - Part II
Posted: 14 February 2007 03:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
[quote author=“sewells1951”]I don’t get why Harris and others feel compelled to ‘go there’ with respect to the supernatural.  Can anyone explain that to me?

Because it sells?

99% of the world, lacking anything that can be called scientific training, do not find it interesting enough simply to engage directly with the world, and must posit supernatural forces in order to feel that “deeper connection”. In fact, the experience of “mystery” is such an intoxicant, that even otherwise sensible people with some scientific training will still seek it out. Gotta love that fix. Let’s give the devil his due: in moderation, it is not physically damaging, and that’s saying something. In excess, it wipes out one’s critical faculties, just like any other drug. Don’t make fun of these people: Their states of mind are real, whatever ethereal “mind” they feel in touch with. But let’s call a spade a spade: People just want the buzz. The buzz is real.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2007 05:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Administrator
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  480
Joined  2006-12-16

The purpose of religion is to assist people in engaging more directly with themselves and the world.
Concepts of the supernatural are simply ego projections, as CanZen has presented so clearly.
Then, as burt pointed out, we get confused in thinking that ‘natural’ means ‘material’.
But I think burt gets caught in the same trap he’s trying to keep other people out of - the trap of attempting to legitimize religious faith through scientific concepts.

I say, let’s concede ‘consciousness’ to the neurologists and talk about God and spirit.

What happens to God when you take away the ego projections? What happens to spirit when you stop equating natural with material, when you pay proper respect to the material as an unseparated manifestation of the immaterial, when you outgrow childish guilt and wishful thinking and worship What Is?

Taking away the ego projections opens up some very profound questions about ‘who am I, really?’ beyond concept, in direct perception of silence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2007 05:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12
[quote author=“Salt Creek”]The buzz is real.

Here we go again.

You keep talking about the “world” as though you knew what it was.  You don’t.  If philosophy isn’t convincing in this point, then why isn’t quantum mechanics? It is simplistic folly to dismiss consciousness as merely an “emergent property of matter.”  That doesn’t jibe with what little I know about quantum mechanics OR the more familiar realm of philosophy.

Reality, existence, matter are all something which appears to something else which can conceive it.  There can be no “existence” without conception of it; there can be no conception without something to conceive.  They are mutually interdependent.

Consider the notion of “pure consciousness” without an object, not even of itself.  What would that be? Sounds like a good definition of the Void, to me.  You can’t, by definition, describe something about which there is nothing objective to describe.  Consciousness requires an object - even itself - in order to differentiate itself from some sort of amorphous monism about which there is nothing to talk about.

Consider the imaginary notion of an “objective reality” with no consciousness for it to appear to.  Scientists love this conceit: that even without humans to conceive the “world” in the way humans conceive it, the “world” has always appeared and would continue to appear, in itself, as it appears to us.  What is the scientific proof for that proposition?  Inferences from palenotology, biology, archeology, anthropology, astrophysics, etc?  Doesn’t that really amount to saying that this “emergent property of matter” - consciousness -  studies the very matter out of which it emerges to explain itself to itself.  Sounds circular to me.  And, if we agree that without proof or evidence, a proposition is imaginary or superstition: if all humans succumb tomorrow to a combination of AIDS, bird flu, terrorism and global warming, how would the world then appear?  Well if there is no human for it to appear TO, who will provide the proof of this appearance?  If you insist the world still would appear as it does now with no human to conceive it - or to prove it - then you must believe in God:  some sort of super-consciousness or Supreme Being that generates, conceives, and holds it all together, independently of humans.  It can’t be animals, insects, fish, and plants: they don’t have human consciousness, and aren’t ABLE to conceive it the way we do.  They are fundamentally unable to CONceive - PERceive is the right term for lower forms.  Certainly “something” appears to their perception, but it MUST “appear” differently than it does to us, and there is no way for us ever to know.  As I said in an earlier post: if there are only cockroaches, there is only cockroach reality.  Period.

If follows that the world we live in and our consciousness of it are inextricably bound together, in a way which mystics describe as a “nondualism.”  Reality is not “monism” - because that leaves no room for any differentiation at all, which contradicts common sense - and realty is not “dualism” because we can figure out that ultimate separation between knower and known is not possible.  It is a not one and not two, but some sort of dynamic “not-two.”

No need to go into again the whole dialectic of where it all came from.  But I like this idea: if philosophically as well as quantum mechanically humans cannot find Truth in what they are conscious of,  then maybe it IS, that Truth is what/who is conscious of humans?

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2007 11:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
[quote author=“mahahaha”]Consider the imaginary notion of an “objective reality” with no consciousness for it to appear to.  Scientists love this conceit: that even without humans to conceive the “world” in the way humans conceive it, the “world” has always appeared and would continue to appear, in itself, as it appears to us.  What is the scientific proof for that proposition?  Inferences from palenotology, biology, archeology, anthropology, astrophysics, etc?  Doesn’t that really amount to saying that this “emergent property of matter” - consciousness -  studies the very matter out of which it emerges to explain itself to itself.  Sounds circular to me.

This emergent property is not to be trifled with. It is startlingly different from what is achieved through “cockroach reality”, I’ll give you that. Maybe that’s all you’re asking for. My notion of “objective reality” is just a starting point. That’s what I carry to work with me in my tool case; there may be no foundation for it. Then again, there may be no foundation for the notion that you and I are having a conversation. :D

Speaking of “evidence”, I see no evidence that human beings with a “spiritual” bent are any more capable than those with a “scientific” bent at dealing with what that ‘reality’ throws at us. In fact, your approach comes off as a blanket disregard (at least in a rhetorical sense, what I might term a “conversational intolerance” of “reality”). I see evidence that some folks (those immersed in religious myths) are actually less-capable. Are you telling me that I shouldn’t trust what I consider to be this evidence? Furthermore, “mystics” such as yourself certainly seem no more capable, either. Bending spoons is often seen as a starting point for testing these capabilities, for example, unfair as that may seem.

[quote author=“SkepticX”]The other quote suggests All4Him believes we can make a choice that somehow effects reality in-and-of itself, as if reality is dependent upon how we perceive it. There either is or is not a god of some kind. It’s not a choice, obviously. All4Him has just demonstrated the standard modus operandi of religious belief—pure presumption.

Go bug SkepticX for awhile. He seems to say essentially the same thing I do. I think you should be striving harder to wipe out this kind of prejudicial nonsense. Why just pick on poor li’l’ ol’ me? smile

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2007 02:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2005-02-22

…being a scientist is a discipline on a par with the others, nonetheless, and damned difficult to work within. Mainly because of peer review.

Absolutely science is a discipline. I consider myself one of its devotees. Of all the generations that have ever lived on this earth, we are of the lucky few that can have a mind that thinks it lives in a world based on science. I point out that thinking scientifically is an entirely different kind of mental experience than meditation. That makes it hard to do both at the same time. Before anything is reaped from the spiritual world, as far as determining foreign policy or spending public money at all, it must pass peer review. Even if that means never.

As a disciplined scientist, would you agree that while discovery must answer to science, science should not dogmatically confine the process of discovery? Spiritual and mystic experience has had only religious frameworks to be described in. If science could become the framework for our spiritual lives, the world would change.

Exploring non-conscious experience shouldn’t be any more imposing than exploring the solar system, which for us is still just mental experience. If you believe we evolved and have a continuous chain of ancestors that begins with bacteria, try looking at meditation from another angle…

Somewhere between the time that brains appeared and now, many different creatures led very different lives that produced different kinds of mental experience. Most of our mental experience is of the higher end of our brain’s abilities and the occasional moment of more primitive experience like touching something too hot or being frightened is considered a loss of consciousness and possibly legally relevant in determining responsibility. Re-engaging in the kind of mental experience our ancestors had for millions of years before us can yield discoveries about how our modern minds work. We can turn big brain on its big past and maybe find some big ideas to think about. Maybe we can find new ways to use our brains that are even better than consciousness. The usual approach- a discipline of some kind is learned and applied by a wide awake conscious mind that organizes and regulates meditative experience, which is not wide awake and conscious.

There has always been the suspicion that, while our conscious minds with their lucky scientific thinking are swell, there may have been an evolutionary trade-off involved. Our ability to create internal worlds may have come at cost of some of our experience of the outside world. Our ancestors may have experienced more of reality than we do. Our inability to access the full range of our ancestor’s physical and mental experience may explain our enduring longing for deeper contact with reality. All our conscious minds can do is be religious, and we all know what happened next.

 Signature 

Delude responsibly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2007 02:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12

[quote author=“Salt Creek”]This emergent property is not to be trifled with. It is startlingly different from what is achieved through “cockroach reality”, I’ll give you that. Maybe that’s all you’re asking for. My notion of “objective reality” is just a starting point.

My point is simply this:  there IS clearly and empirically an “objective” reality.  But how that reality appears is in ALL cases relative to the observer of the reality, which “interprets” stimuli using the apparatus it has.  In the case of humans, the apparatus consists of 5 senses and a large brain, which filters the stimuli via perceptions, into conceptions,“creating”  reality as a 3 spacial dimensional universe moving within a 4th dimension of time.  That is a philosophical contruct dealing with macro reality.  In quantum mechanics interpreting micro reality, it is called, as you well know and understand better than most (if not all) on this forum, “collapsing the wave function.”

Therefore, if you postulate ZERO human beings existing in order to interpret, conceive, collapse, prove and verify the stimuli, and let’s further postulate, only cockroaches, then whatever this objective stimulus “is” or “consists of,” will appear as “cockroach reality” only.  It WILL exist.  But without humans to “collapse it,” who knows how it will appear?  What if there is no living being or entity at all? Pure wave probabilty function?  The human mind thinking about what “is” without a human mind to define it boggles…

Hence, mysticism.  For that which causes the mind to boggle.  And only for that.  Everything else must withstand the rigors of rational and scientific analysis.

Speaking of “evidence”, I see no evidence that human beings with a “spiritual” bent are any more capable than those with a “scientific” bent at dealing with what that ‘reality’ throws at us. In fact, your approach comes off as a blanket disregard (at least in a rhetorical sense, what I might term a “conversational intolerance” of “reality”). I see evidence that some folks (those immersed in religious myths) are actually less-capable. Are you telling me that I shouldn’t trust what I consider to be this evidence?

Hell, no.  Don’t trust anything which you cannot personally verify.  I’m NOT a mystic.  I’m a wannabe.  I’m just relating some thoughts gleaned from what I have read and heard over the last 30 years that have lead little old me to the conclusion that reason has limits.  Maybe it is possible to “go beyond” the limits; maybe not, and it is “really” only insanity.  I don’t know. I may never know.  If I DID know, however, first, I would not preach, and second, I would never jettison reason, science and logic.  If those don’t fit into the “ultimate schema” - whatever it “is” - perfectly, then I reject the schema.

Furthermore, “mystics” such as yourself certainly seem no more capable, either. Bending spoons is often seen as a starting point for testing these capabilities, for example, unfair as that may seem.

Totally agreed. Some are LESS capable.  If they can’t get past Randi, then they can’t get past me.  My “fantasy mystic”  would get past me, you, Randi, Stephen Hawking, Sam Harris AND the Dali Lama, to name a few.  But he or she wouldn’t trifle with the Pope or Jerry Falwell. They are way, way too far down the ladder of evolution (which they don’t even accept) to bother with.  Both spiritually and intellectually deficient.

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2007 02:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“Nhoj Morley”]I point out that thinking scientifically is an entirely different kind of mental experience than meditation. That makes it hard to do both at the same time.

Show me anything that demonstrates the validity of that final statement.

The fundamental arrogance of the “spiritually enlightened” (of all stripes) is that they have something you do not have, and that you want it. You know you do.

As a disciplined scientist, would you agree that while discovery must answer to science, science should not dogmatically confine the process of discovery?

Go in peace. Discover. Publish. Achieve fame.

Spiritual and mystic experience has had only religious frameworks to be described in. If science could become the framework for our spiritual lives, the world would change.

“I’d love to change the world, but I don’t know what to do.” This dates me, as it was sung satirically by Ten Years After, back around 1970.

Given that the world changes all by its lonesome, this doesn’t gripe me.

try looking at meditation from another angle…

I do, of course, look at meditation from another angle. I know, for example, that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi became very rich from this idea.

a wide awake conscious mind that organizes and regulates meditative experience, which is not wide awake and conscious.

Poetry. Pure poetry. Also, pure self-contradictory piffle.

our enduring longing for deeper contact with reality. All our conscious minds can do is be religious, and we all know what happened next.

Speak for yourself, Jack.

“you say you’ve got a real solution, we-ell y’know-ow, we’d all love to see the plan; you ask me for a contribution, we-ell y’know-ow, we’re all doing what we can…”

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2007 02:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“mahahaha”]Don’t trust anything which you cannot personally verify.

This is the sort of thing that Bad_Conduct says over and over again. Have you two been smooching out behind the gazebo? Not that I would suspect such a thing…

Anyway, it’s too restrictive for me. I have to be able to read a manuscript in Physical Review, and be able to give it more weight than I do to reports that the US government conspired in bringing down the WTC towers.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2007 04:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17

[quote author=“Salt Creek”][quote author=“Nhoj Morley”]I point out that thinking scientifically is an entirely different kind of mental experience than meditation. That makes it hard to do both at the same time.

Burt: That is not necessarily true, there are various forms of meditation.  For example, as a mathematician I find myself spending long periods doing essentially mindless computations in an exploratory way.  This is an essentially automatic activity taking no attention other than making sure that the symbols connect properly.  At the same time, I keep my mind in an attentive but essentially empty meditative state and this allows me to recognize items of significance that occasionally pop up as the automatic computing activity goes on.

Show me anything that demonstrates the validity of that final statement.

The fundamental arrogance of the “spiritually enlightened” (of all stripes) is that they have something you do not have, and that you want it. You know you do. 

Burt: As Idries Shah once said: a man who claimed he could make fire without rubbing two sticks together would appear aggorant to somebody who could not.  You don’t necessarily want it, but I enjoy it.

As a disciplined scientist, would you agree that while discovery must answer to science, science should not dogmatically confine the process of discovery?

Go in peace. Discover. Publish. Achieve fame.

Spiritual and mystic experience has had only religious frameworks to be described in. If science could become the framework for our spiritual lives, the world would change.

 

Burt: Science needs to evolve its methods and also to develop criteria for the evaluation of conscious experiences only available in first person.  Science is still evolving and is not yet a complete knowledge generating system.

try looking at meditation from another angle…

I do, of course, look at meditation from another angle. I know, for example, that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi became very rich from this idea.

Burt: That does not invalidate meditation.  Bill Gates became even richer from his ideas (as a Mac user I quail at using this analogy).

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2007 08:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12

[quote author=“Salt Creek”][quote author=“mahahaha”]Don’t trust anything which you cannot personally verify.

This is the sort of thing that Bad_Conduct says over and over again. Have you two been smooching out behind the gazebo? Not that I would suspect such a thing…

Anyway, it’s too restrictive for me. I have to be able to read a manuscript in Physical Review, and be able to give it more weight than I do to reports that the US government conspired in bringing down the WTC towers.

Well, I suppose the statement was too broad:  it’s not as though I have to know the math to accept the law of gravity; I’ve never read a shred of Darwin first hand; I won’t even look at the cover of a quatum mechanics textbook.  But I accept the consensus that the science behind the theories is valid, and accordingly accept them all second hand.

As to mysticism, though, first hand experience is the rule; everything else is a at best a guess and at worst a fraud.

As to comparing my remarks to those of Bad_Conduct:  you’ve thrown down the glauntlet, dude.  :twisted:  Revenge is a meal best served cold.  You can run, but you can’t hide.  Your day will come.  8)

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2007 06:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  177
Joined  2005-03-12

I found this in a book;

“It is simply unknowable if anything exists in it’s own right beyond or outside of consciousness or mind. We have no such experience to which we can point, and which can then prove a philosophical view like realism (which holds that the world , the universe, and everything else is here whether we are aware of it or not). All that we experience—or know, think, imagine, remember, feel, and dream—we experience because we are first ‘aware’. For us everything requires and depends on consciousness to be. The perception of an external world, the existence of others, even the fact of our own bodies, are represented to us through the agency of our consciousness. Consciousness is the inside, outside, and farside of reality; it is the height, breadth, and transcendent beyond. Consciousness is the locus of all reality. Even the fact that we have a brain is mediated to us through our awareness of it; our perception of the brain, as of all other perceptions; occurs in our thought and awareness. We are unable to get outside the ‘skin’ of our consciousness to experience what might be there. Even if it were possible we would still have to be aware to perceive what might be outside or beyond. A fundamental contradiction thus prevents us from even entertaining the possibility. It is simply not meaningful to speak of a world or cosmos independent of consciousness. That which makes perception possible is the basis of reality. Every system of thought that exists —every theory, science, art, literature, culture, religion, spirituality, family life, our own personal existence, all experience—requires consciousness. If we are aware that we ‘are’, it is precisely because we are ‘aware’. The weight of being is on awareness, not on external phenomena.”

 Signature 

“Every minute we spend oblivious to the value of a minute is a minute of unconsciousness. This isn’t some screwball scheme to latch onto the present moment in time, it’s simply what it means to be awake.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2007 08:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“JustThis”]I found this in a book;

“It is simply unknowable if anything exists in it’s own right beyond or outside of consciousness or mind….

Then why do you say you found “this” in a “book”? What’s a “book”? Does the “book” exist in its own right? NO! Why the hell don’t you just say you imagined the whole F*****G thing?

Why haven’t you long since given up on finding “things” in “books”?

Furthermore, why did you bother to “type” the quotation on a “keyboard” attached to the “computer” with which “you” connect to the “Internet”?

Of course, the “confusion” you exhibit in this regard is also only imaginary. But then again, you’re such a freaking ozone case that you cannot even be bothered to give us the “title” of the “book” “you” found “it” in.

Until you do, and perhaps even afterward, those who read your words are going to have to assume that you did, in fact, imagine the whole thing.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2007 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  390
Joined  2006-10-12

[quote author=“Salt Creek”]those who read your words are going to have to assume that you did, in fact, imagine the whole thing.

Great.  Don’t respond to the argument; attack the messenger.  A Bush Administration tactic.  Bush League.

Why does philosophy bother you so much?  Why do hard core physicists like yourself ignore the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, when the conclusion is reached that a “particle” of light does not exist, as such, but is rather a wave function and mere probablity until an observer collapses the wave function and thereby “creates” the particle in a particular time and space?  Without the observer, there is no particle. That is an astounding conclusion to hear from physicists, though it is no surprise to philosophers. 

If I have misunderstood the message, please, by all means, explain where I have gone astray.  I am ready and waiting eagerly to hear more of your withering sarcasm and smug, self important didacticsim.

And, just where do you read into anything that JustThis, Burt, or myself, to cite a few examples, have said which attempts to deny macro empirical reality?  We all eat, drink, piss, shit, and fuck, just like you.  Unlike you, however, we have the wit, curiosity, and imagination to question what our lying eyes might presume. and to examine the foundation -  by using our intellect, and not by buying into a bunch of hippy dippy, woo woo bullshit.  And not by taking everything around us for granted, either.

There is a reason why Naive Realsim is referred to precisely as naive.  I didn’t make up the term, but I note that it fits you to a “T.”  Doesn’t that embarrass you at all?  Are you bereft of the slightest self awareness?

 Signature 

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it”—Andre Gide

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2007 01:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  497
Joined  2005-02-22

I like Burt’s new format.

Nhoj: …That makes it hard to do both at the same time.

Burt: That is not necessarily true, there are various forms of meditation. For example, as a mathematician I find myself spending long periods doing essentially mindless computations in an exploratory way. This is an essentially automatic activity taking no attention other than making sure that the symbols connect properly. At the same time, I keep my mind in an attentive but essentially empty meditative state and this allows me to recognize items of significance that occasionally pop up as the automatic computing activity goes on.

Salt Creek: Show me anything that demonstrates the validity of that final statement.

Nhoj: Burt is quite right. You got me. I should have said experience both at the same time. I would expect a 21st century scientist to have a fairly easy time doing what I said was “hard to do”. There are a lot of meditative disciplines out there. I wasn’t trying to describe all of them. My personal approach to meditation is a lot like yours. Get absorbed in a do thing, and let the mind riff. Others can judge the name brand disciplines for themselves, and hopefully based the results and not the quality of its sales literature. Salt, I’m still looking for a link you might find interesting…

Salt Creek: The fundamental arrogance of the “spiritually enlightened” (of all stripes) is that they have something you do not have, and that you want it. You know you do… Maharishi Mahesh Yogi became very rich from this idea.

Nhoj: I’ve always thought of enlightenment as learning something or consciously figuring it out. Why do keep mentioning money? No one is selling anything in this thread. I wouldn’t know how to promote spiritual enlightenment of any stripe. You make a much better spokesman for the Fundamental Arrogance of the Scientifically Enlightened. I don’t think I have a stripe. Perhaps you’ll suggest one.

Burt: Science needs to evolve its methods and also to develop criteria for the evaluation of conscious experiences only available in first person.

Nhoj: Exactly. I defend Mr. Harris’s efforts to add personal experience to the debate. The biggest problem with creating a subjective consensus is that so many people have already got one. A religious faith is a subjective consensus that is installed and enforced for the presumed purpose of instilling a morality in people. Imagine how much better of a morality might emerge from a peer reviewed subjective consensus. Still dicey, but better.

Salt Creek: pure self-contradictory piffle.

Nhoj: I suppose things start to explode the moment any declaration of the nature of subjective reality is made. I was hoping for better explosions. Subjective reality is best left to the pros, the scientist, Top Men. The moment they think there is anything to say on the subject, they’ll let you know. We wouldn’t want any amateurs batting ideas around on some sparsely populated, spam-ridden book forum now would we…

 Signature 

Delude responsibly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 February 2007 03:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“mahahaha”][quote author=“Salt Creek”]those who read your words are going to have to assume that you did, in fact, imagine the whole thing.

Great.  Don’t respond to the argument; attack the messenger.  A Bush Administration tactic.  Bush League.

You’re right, I have attacked the messenger, and it was my intent to do so. If someone wants to make a (nonsensical) argument about the unknowability of the world outside of consciousness and have the temerity to tell me he got it from a book, there’s a disconnect between the authority one has placed on one’s own consciousness and the authority in which one has robed himself by virtue of having read it in “a book”. I mean, what’s “a book”?? - especially to someone who quotes the following:

It is simply unknowable if anything exists in its own right beyond or outside of consciousness or mind.

What I was attacking was the sin verguenza frippery of borrowing a particularly unknowing attitude about “unknowability” from someone else’s “consciousness”, implicit in lifting a passage from “a book”. One might say that the attitude was “naive”, but see below for terminology.

Why do hard core physicists like yourself ignore the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, when the conclusion is reached that a “particle” of light does not exist, as such, but is rather a wave function and mere probablity until an observer collapses the wave function and thereby “creates” the particle in a particular time and space? Without the observer, there is no particle.

This is a blatant and willful misunderstanding of what, exactly, has been achieved by the Copenhagen interpretation, or whatever. The fact that this operation of “collapsing the wave function” applies (relevant to the point you think you are making) only at the length scale of electrons seems to mean nothing to you, and apparently allows you to think that you have now “collapsed the wave function” of the elephant in your particular room.

The difficult thing you have to contend with is that matter does cohere, and exhibits collective properties of “particles in aggregate”, and the fact that all the molecules in the cow never simultaneously jump over the moon and then reconstitute themselves in Farmer Brown’s field seems to have no significance for you. That cow is standing in that field, chewing its cud, and it seems advantageous in a practical sense for you and me to agree on that state of things. Otherwise, what has put all those cowpies there?

You may go right ahead attempting to walk through walls. No need to involve me in your little drama of willfully misinterpreting science. Naive realism is a rhetorical device, and not within the methodology of science. I have granted already that the concept of “objective reality” is a starting point, rather than a conclusion. Let’s see where it takes us when we do not, in fact, assume there is nothing knowable outside our own consciousness. There is certainly nothing naive about understanding the mathematics, at least a little better than you seem to have done.

If I have misunderstood the message, please, by all means, explain where I have gone astray. I am ready and waiting eagerly to hear more of your withering sarcasm and smug, self important didacticsim.

You have misunderstood, and you have gone astray. And I have told you now several times exactly how you have done so. Yet you continue to insist on interpreting the science in a way that soothes your particular philosophical conceits. The withering sarcasm is merely a courtesy, a token of my esteem for the persistence of your effort. We will each of us one day wither away. Doing this properly requires no effort on your part. The second law of thermodynamics will eventually take care of it for you.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 7
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed