Quantum reality and Idealism

[Zero]

I do not assume this at all.

Wrong.

I deduce this fact.

Not true.

Consider the fact that any entity or object must choose and create the abstract experience of pain, for example upon its own awareness, even as a chosen response to [supposed] external processes.

You made this up; this is not a fact.

But external processes do not force an object to have abstract/intangible experiences (sensations and thoughts), nor do they create them for that entity.

You made this up. It doesn't follow from any evidence or logic.

Only a Mind can have abstract experiences. And only a Mind can willfully create them for its own awareness.

No coherent definition of 'Mind', semantically null statement.

A Mind is the primal-cause of all known/perceived existence, for all known/perceived existence is abstract/intangible... and is self-created, with independent choice.

Assumption based on inconsistant illogical principles.

I assume that conscious awareness belongs to the mind that created it? Palease Russ.

Everything up until this point has been an assumption on your part. And the word "please" only contains one "a".

Take it as fact that if The Mind is the source of all perceived existence, that our choices are its choices.

The phrase "take it as fact" means "make an unfounded assumption", which is the problem we are trying to help you understand.

As a whole, The Mind can become dead or it can become... well, that's for another discussion.

Yet another baseless assumption, made about the incoherent, undefined "Mind" concept.

You prefer divisions amongst man, perpetuating war and misery and inequality?

Nonsense, since your assumptions do not in any way reflect on human behavior...I thought this was about QM?

You stated that the act of measurement, even by machine (and not just observation) was sufficient to collapse the wave.
Answer this then: Take away humanity and take away his machines. Now, what collapses the wave?

Interaction with other objects, or fields, can act as an 'observer'; conscious observation is not a requirement.

If measurement or observation is the essence of wave-collapse, how did any waves collapse prior to human origins? How did definite things occur in definite time to yield we definite creatures who see a clearly defined world upon our sensations?
I'd like a reasoned response to this question, if you can think of one.

Again, conscious observation is not necessary for wave function collapse. Since the majority of the universe's history occured before humanity made an appearance, and the history of the universe, and this planet specifically, apparently did happen, then human observation has never been required, has it? Certainly pre-human history is evidence enough that your philosophy has at least a single gaping hole in it.

Experiencing abstract sensations is a self-created experience, made via will and choice. The [supposed] external reality does not force entities to have abstract sensation. The entity itself is the primal-cause of its own perceived existence.

This is pure unadulterated assumption, and not even the product of a bright, imaginative mind.

 

[Iacchus]

This is what the rest of the world likes to call "lying to yourself because it sounds right". If you have proof, then it should stand up to outside test and scruitiny, otherwise, you're just lying to yourself.

The "rest" of the world? Yes, and I'm an alien from outerspace.

Science is an open system where you can disagree with anyone's conclusions. If you provide a good case, people will agree.

So you admit then, that what it really boils down to is a matter of opinion. I don't care whether you can get 1,000 scientists to agree that 1 + 1 = 2, it still doesn't change the fact that it's "their opinion" (until I can see it for myself).

 

[Iacchus]

Science is not "run" by anyway, its distributed, there is no central descision making authority. And people do not simply make their own descisions, they utilize logic, reason, experimentation, proofs, and peer review.

Then by all means get rid of all the scientists and their administrators.

 

[Zero]

Then by all means get rid of all the scientists and their administrators.

Sure, and next time you get sick or break a bone, go see a psychic instead of a doctor, ok? Ask your priest to lay hands on you, or rub a Bible on your head.

 

[Iacchus]

For our philosophy to be meaningfull, it has to stand up to peer review, otherwise, you are just lying to yourself. Its really easy for 1 human to not see a flaw in reasoning (especially if that 1 human *wants* to believe), but when you add more and more humans, the possibility for error keeps going down. In Science, I would say we have millions of humans looking at the results of certain experiments and problems, attempting to nitpick any flaw in methods.

There are many ways to apply science, even in our own minds. Consider the work of Carl Jung for example. There's lots of evidence in his findings.

 

[Iacchus]

Sure, and next time you get sick or break a bone, go see a psychic instead of a doctor, ok? Ask your priest to lay hands on you, or rub a Bible on your head.

Actually I've only been to the doctor once in the last 25 years, and they still couldn't find what was wrong with me. I had to resolve the problem myself!

 

[Zero]

Actually I've only been to the doctor once in the last 25 years, and they still couldn't find what was wrong with me. I had to resolve the problem myself!

Mental problem?

 

[Iacchus]

Mental problem?

No, I complained of having a heart attack the year before and having diabetes like symptoms. Which, I am happy to say, have completely gone away (after I began taking certain mineral supplements).

 

[Zero]

No, I complained of having a heart attack the year before and having diabetes like symptoms. Which, I am happy to say, have completely gone away (after I began taking certain mineral supplements).

So, you had gas and were tired...sounds like there was nothing wrong with you to be fixed.

 

[Wudang]

"There IS an awareness of sensation. The "I" refers to the awareness itself."

Which part of this do I need to prove? Please inform me because I hate to look silly when presented with clear flaws in my thinking processes.
There IS awareness of sensation. And "I" is just the label refering to that awareness. It doesn't need a proof in itself because it's just a tag.
The actual identity of the "I" is not unveiled until further into the argument, so there is no problem with using an undefined tag to equate to actual awareness.

Thanks, this is a good response. Let's play a bit free and easy with language to try to understand each other, okay? Let's look at an experience as a sentence. So we have the "sensation" which we can think of as a "verb", we have the "I" which the subject and we have the "stimulus" which is the object okay?
So "I saw light". Something which we label "I" was the recipient of a sensation which we label "light". I think we're both okay up to this point, though we could both probably pick nits forever but.... Now where I have the problem is that the "I" is not proven to be a "thing in itself". And if I understand you correctly, you also believe that the "I" is not what we would normally consider to be an individual awareness in the normal sense.
What I am saying is that the sentence may actually be in the passive voice. "There was light". I don't know, is this any better than my previous attempts?

 

[Pahansiri]

I don't care whether you can get 1,000 scientists to agree that 1 + 1 = 2, it still doesn't change the fact that it's "their opinion" (until I can see it for myself).

This may be perhaps of all the illogical and silly things you have said the most profoundly ridiculous.

I don't care whether you can get 1,000 scientists to agree that 1 + 1 = 2, it still doesn't change the fact that it's "their opinion" (until I can see it for myself).

It is not their “opinion” that 1+1=2. It is fact supported by fact, reality and free from any assumption. If you can or can not, do or do not believe or understand the truth is irrelevant and the flaw is in your ability to reason and comprehend reality not the fact nor the explainer of fact.

 

[Iacchus]

This may be perhaps of all the illogical and silly things you have said the most profoundly ridiculous.

I don't care whether you can get 1,000 scientists to agree that 1 + 1 = 2, it still doesn't change the fact that it's "their opinion" (until I can see it for myself).

It is not their “opinion” that 1+1=2. It is fact supported by fact, reality and free from any assumption. If you can or can not, do or do not believe or understand the truth is irrelevant and the flaw is in your ability to reason and comprehend reality not the fact nor the explainer of fact.

Then why do they call it "scientific opinion?" Or, am I misquoting its use here?

 

[Iacchus]

So, you had gas and were tired...sounds like there was nothing wrong with you to be fixed.

Yep, 25 years and not a single thing wrong with me. Not!

 

[Pahansiri]

Then why do they call it "scientific opinion?" Or, am I misquoting its use here?

Should be self evident you are.

Some/many, (all that have reached the point of fact scientific) achievements clearly have demonstrated what is fact you really believe the computer you are using which was developed though scientific “may be real and working for you right now”?

What of Penicillin and other antibiotics is it your belief that “may”kill bacteria by interfering
with the ability to synthesize cell wall ?


You clearly confuse research with results.

For you to believe that a fact like 1+1=2 is scientific “opinion” demonstrates you are in the wrong discussion board.

What you have, your belief is an “opinion”, a belief. I respect you believe it but as all have said if you demand it is fact then prove it you are running here and there and not simply having a meaningful discussion.

I believe with great respect you should go to a board where people believe as you do and share time with them. It is there you will find more comfort.

Be well my friend and remember no matter what you choose to believe or what your opinion is it will never change fact and 1+1 will always =2.

 

[Dancing David]

Science is not an entity unto its own you see. It's still run by people. And people still have to draw the conclusions. And, in order for it to make sense to other peope, they still have to "maintain" some idea of it for themselves.

We were discussing the interpretation of evidence and you expressed something about 'interpretation'. Conclusions that can be drawn from science and replicated are very well defined.

Where do you think the interpretation comes in?

Conclusons in science are dangerous, there are theories which are approximations. lets us here your evidence and theories about the nature of god.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, this can be construed as evidence of the supernatural, and yet it's still subject to interpretation, obviously. In which case it would be helpful to have some good reference materials available as well.

That was the point I am making, belief in the supernatural is belief. If you apply the methods of science you can find the causes of what appears to be supernatural and find it to be natural.

I have found that god , self and mind are subjects that many do not wish to put to the test. they wish to say that they are apart from reality and not subject to science.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, I don't believe I'm pointing a gun at anyone's head about it?

And besides, where I may come across as being elusive, you have to remember we are speaking about that which is elusive to most people. In which case maybe we have to ask why this is so? (before taking it some place else). Which, I believe is what I'm trying to address by asking, "How do we know what we know?"

Thats the root of the problem what we know is just belief unless it is subject to the realm of science.

Something can be anaology, similie and metaphor. But it is not real except to the human toughts about it. But put it to the test and the reality of it can be learned.

It is not about interpretation, it is about some people needing blind belief.

the spiritual world is real, it does not need all the clap trap and woo-woo googly added to it by many people.

There is knowledge that is solely the product of the human thought and then there is science.

 

[Dancing David]

There IS an awareness of sensation. The "I" refers to the awareness itself.

And I ask you again Lifegazer, what is that awareness, it is not a thing that is unified, it is a composite of events.

You just want to believe that there is a self, there isn't. There are the seperate events that you lump together under 'awareness', but again I ask you define awareness.

In two thousand words or less.


There is the sensation of the color, what is the awareness?

I ask you again, what is the awareness?(BTW, you sound like a dualist when you head this way.)

 

[Dancing David]

Well we both know that this statement requires a leap of faith, don't we?
Your ability to reason considers what you are sensing, creating a knowledge of things. These things reside within your awareness. They include, of course, "firing neurons". Yup, firing neurons are things seen within your awareness.
What I can say with absolute certainty is that man will never see something within his awareness which is responsible for that awareness.

Philosophers who make the leap to an external realm, do so without reason. They kill the purity of philosophy in the process.

You really ought to go read that thread and the quotes by Titus Rivas, he has already explored this area, and could help you clarify your self.

Why would drugs and electrical stimulation and brain damage effect aware ness if awareness is not the basic biological process?

Titus never had a good answer, will you.

MOOO MOO

 

[Dancing David]

"There IS an awareness of sensation. The "I" refers to the awareness itself."

Which part of this do I need to prove? Please inform me because I hate to look silly when presented with clear flaws in my thinking processes.
There IS awareness of sensation. And "I" is just the label refering to that awareness. It doesn't need a proof in itself because it's just a tag.
The actual identity of the "I" is not unveiled until further into the argument, so there is no problem with using an undefined tag to equate to actual awareness.

HOO HOO HOO

If it is just a tag that that proves the point of the buddha. It IS A TAG, it exists only as a tag. It does not exist in and of itself!

I can't wait to see you lift the veil!

There is no I, there are sensations, there are perceptions, there are thoughts, there are emptions, there are habits. There is no self.

You walked away from the buddha because you could not win.

There is no self. That is the illusion that prevents you from attaining unity.

There is no self. That is the illusion that prevents you from attaining unity.

There is no self. That is the illusion that prevents you from attaining unity.