lifegazer said:
Correction: Matter is the definition we give to localised concentrations of sensed-light.
eh, no, sorry, we sense matter in both a lot more direct (touch, smell, taste, hot/cold) and indirect (instrumentation, particle accelerators, etc). Matter is the definition we give to any particle that has mass. (may definition may be slightly off from the high energy physics point of view, someone correct me if I have mispoken).
Exactly. Note how you are defining the universe that we are sensing. Note how scientific knowledge refers directly to what we sense.
Note how *all* knowledge refers directly to what we sense. Even recalling memories is just sensing. Memory in itself is just another sense. Dreaming is also just sensing. It is just as likely that sensations brought to us by memory is lying as sensations brought to us by what we perceive to be reality. Given this, I fail to see how you can hope to prove that we do not exist in a universe governed by the laws of physics, with no great mind involved.
"A probability curve represents our understanding of where a particle will go - not what it is."
I disagree, a probability curve describes exactly what a particle is and hov it interacts. Even in your philosophy this is true, the particles in the book governed by the mind are controlled by the laws of physics, and are thus nothing more than the equations that describe them.
Tales are intangible, as is language itself. What exists and our understanding of what exists, are not the same.
Your view of the word "exists" is far too narrow, something does not need to be tangible to exist. Tangibility, by definition, must refer to something that exists in our own reality. Just because something does not exist in our reality, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
The Mind hasn't become lifegazer... The Mind merely thinks that it is lifegazer. Thinking that you are something is not the same thing as becoming that thing.
Only Self knowledge. Knowledge is intangible. Nothing tangible is "left behind".
*exactly*, that knowledge is left behind. Which means it is not part of the lifegazer ego, which means it is external to the lifegazer ego.
lifegazer doesn't exist. He is a sensed-thing. He doesn't possess the mind but is embraced by it.
God is not external to anyone since nobody exists except God.
Ok, then stop talking about internal, because then you have to admit there is an external. Nothing can have an internal without an external. Either reality is a dualism, or it isn't
A sensed thing is not the same thing as an ego. One cannot sense themselves having a different personality. Are you going to try to disprove, "I think, therefore I am"?
I don't think philosophers were talking about quantum-physics 2400 years ago, do you?
No, but your argument at the start of this thread centers around a description of reality that is 2400 years old.
They could have been though! Why? Because the realisation that the Mind is a primal-cause leads to the conclusion that the energy of the Mind must be fundamentally non-determinable.
You have completely coped out on explaining what any of this means...for MONTHS. Its complete senselessness and not even you knows what it means. You have completely avoiding any arguments regarding the statement above, but instead merely repeat it over...and over...and over...and over.... Big, meaningless words and concepts will not help you here. Not even you could have predicted QM because you have absolutely no clue what it is.
It is your arguments that don't reflect "reality" because I have yet to hear you acknowledge that the sensed-universe is not real in itself.
What is real within our own universe is what is tangible. Either we exist within the universe we perceive or we do not. The other option being that we live in a dualism, which is what you are utimately arguing. (unless you want to conceed, and say that yes, we exist within the universe we perceive).
Strange, you bring up physics from time to time, and when it is pointed out that physics do not support your point of view, you claim "but its not really reality, so it doesn't matter". Then why bring up physics in the first place?
Wow, a bunch of babble from uninformed philosophers about quantum entanglement. How about the hard facts behind quantum entangement, rather than the philosophical dreaming:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
Our "local realistic" view of the world assumes that phenomena are separated by time and space and that no influence can travel faster than the speed of light. Quantum nonlocality proves that these assumptions are incorrect, and that there is a principle of holistic interconnectedness operating at the quantum level which contradicts the localistic assumptions of classical, Newtonian physics.
Note that no usable information is transmitted, and the effect of entanglement depends on the particles being at the same point in space. You cannot entangle particles that do not have spatial locality (unless you are passing quantum state with previously entangled particles, in which case, they must have locality with those particles).
Yes, many things contridict classical, newtonian physics, and yet, you seem to cling to many concepts of newtonian physics, most notably, in your discussions about relativity.
Imo, this is reflective of the essential non-spatialness of 'awareness' in which all perceived quantum-events take place.
Entanglement has no tie whatsoever to awareness. Sorry. Also, for particles to have their quantum state entangled, they must interact, and that interaction depends on their position in spacetime. No spatialness, no entanglement.
You're talking about sensed-space there Russ.
Ah, once again, you try to use physics to prove something, but when it turns against you, and the arguments become to difficult, you cop out and say it doesn't matter because it is only sensed reality. Either it matters, or it doesn't. Pick one.
Particle/wave duality and observer importance are well documented.
WTF lifegazer, we went over this, quite a few times. Wave/particle duality does not need an observer, it just needs an interaction. As soon as a particle interacts, its wave function is collapsed. By observer in these experiments, what is meant is a sensor, the sensor works by interacting with the particle. The sensor does not need to be hooked to anything for this effect to work.
Please, Please, Please, if you are so insistant that wave/particle duality has some relation to awareness, provide some evidence. Otherwise, throw out QM in your discussions, because it does not agree with you.
Yes, you do, start by reading up:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-decoherence/
Note specifically on the double slit experiment:
"The disappearence of the interference term, however, can happen also spontaneously, even when no ‘true collapse’ is presumed to happen, namely if some other systems (say, sufficiently many stray cosmic particles scattering off the electron) suitably interact with the wave between the slits and the screen. In this case, the interference term is not observed, because the electron has become entangled with the stray particles (see the entry on quantum entanglement and information)"
