Quantum reality and Idealism

[Zero]

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?"

Well, the point is that you don't start from believing and then finding reasons to believe. You start with observing, and then trying to figure out why things are how they are. "God" is the most dangerous assumption, because when people decide on that avenue, they usually never learn anything else.

It is great to ask a 'what if' question...but that is a place to start, after you have made some observations. From there, you have to make logical guesses about what follows from that question, then compare your answers to reality. When the reality doesn't match your guesses, you have to rejct those guesses...and most times you throw away the 'what if' question entirely.

 

[lifegazer]

I'm sorry; I thought you had presented your philosophy for critical review. Else, why are you here?

True, but I do not class "critical review" as "Your philosophy is rubbish... go and read a 200,000 word thread and you'll see why.".

You present a half-baked load of tripe in a skeptics forum, and then call me slippery for trying to keep the focus on the faults of your philosophy? We have tried to pin down your beliefs here with little or no success; some question whether you yourself know what you believe. The focus is, quite justly, on your words.

Okay. Then stop diverting the readers to someone elses thread.

Oh, you got that? Good. There is hope. Yes, you make the assumption that mental entities exist. One need not make that assumption.

I make the assumption that I have sensations, I reason, I feel?
That's nutty. In fact, these things are the only things I can be certain of, as I attempt to unravel this mysterious existence.

"You say that there is no realm of definites"

I find it an amusing phrase, in fact.

Is there or is there not, a realm/reality where definite things exist, beyond the mind's eye?

"Without using any definitions"? You mean, just make crap up, like you do? I begin to understand. Which abstract experiences do you refer to as "these"? Be more precise, please.

Any sensation is an abstract experience. Do you think the universe knows what 'pain' is, for example? 'Red'? 'Sweet'? 'Cold'?
'Itchy'?
Also, thoughts & feelings are equally intangible and abstract - the universe does not understand concepts or feelings and desires.

If there is anyone here who can explain what this means, please give it a go. My philosophy has no use for your "realm of definites"; it is perfectly coherent as is.

Well sir, a philosophy is grounded upon definites. So, you must accept that there are some. So, please enlighten the room what these things are. It's difficult having a conversation with somebody so secretive about what he thinks, wouldn't you agree?

Get back to defending your own mentalisms, or else simply agree that they are assertions rather than truths, and then if you want we can discuss my stuff.

The sensations are real. If they are not, then how do I know about them? How do you know about them?

Feel free to bait me some more now; I won't be back here until I have something worth responding to. It was grand fun with Interesting Ian and Titus Rivas; I sincerely hope you are up to the task. I will not, however, hold my breath.

Which threads did you refer them to as your retort?

 

[Wudang]

I make the assumption that I have sensations, I reason, I feel?
That's nutty. In fact, these things are the only things I can be certain of, as I attempt to unravel this mysterious existence.
The sensations are real. If they are not, then how do I know about them? How do you know about them?

Well, still on the same point, I see. There are sensations and you make the assumption that there is an "I" experiencing them.

 

[lifegazer]

Well, still on the same point, I see. There are sensations and you make the assumption that there is an "I" experiencing them.

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

 

[Wudang]

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

Okay - so the "I" is just your neurons firing?

 

[RussDill]

So where were we?

Err... if I remember correctly, I had just proven that the realm of definites is a realm of mind... then we all celebrated the new year... but I have a small hangover and can't remember... err...
oh yes, silly me: There is a God and 'you' know who you are, don't you?

umm...no, you had talked about your misconceptions on QM, kept talking about how you'd find an experiment that proves consciosness is a part of QM, but you kept getting shot down

 

[RussDill]

I make the assumption that I have sensations, I reason, I feel?
That's nutty. In fact, these things are the only things I can be certain of, as I attempt to unravel this mysterious existence.

What about the part where you assume what perceived reality is. You assume its a vast illusion created by a superior intelligence. Then you assume that our consciousness is a part of the mind's consciousness, then you assume we are all here to make a descision for the mind. Then you assume that descision is whether or not to live or die. Then you assume we'd all be happy if we decided that the mind exists and we need unity.

Is there or is there not, a realm/reality where definite things exist, beyond the mind's eye?

QM is not definate in the sense billard ball like partciles would be, but it still is a realm with definates. A particle with a 1/2 spin cannot suddenly change into a particle with no spin (spin is conserved). All energy must obey the heisenberg uncertainty principle. All particle interactions obey the probabilities seen in fynmen (sp) diagrams. etc, etc.

Any sensation is an abstract experience. Do you think the universe knows what 'pain' is, for example? 'Red'? 'Sweet'? 'Cold'?
'Itchy'?
Also, thoughts & feelings are equally intangible and abstract - the universe does not understand concepts or feelings and desires.

The universe need not understand them. Whats important is that they apply to a physical reality, which they definately do, they are not arbituary. All thoughts, feelings, experience, etc, are there because they are evolutionarily advantageous in some way.

 

[lifegazer]

Okay - so the "I" is just your neurons firing?

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.

 

[RussDill]

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.

But then you are agreeing that it can be true (indifferent to you thinking it unlikely). If you think that it can be true, then saying that it isn't true is an assumption, isn't it?

 

[RussDill]

I have prooved it. I've proved it to myself. How else would we be able to ascertain anything if we couldn't see if for ourselves?

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.

Forget about science because science can only present us with evidence. It's still up to "you" to decide what that evidence means.

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

 

[RussDill]

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.

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.

 

[RussDill]

I have never said that others don't know more than me on certain subjects, but that doesn't mean I have take everything they say as verbatim does it? Ultimately, in order for me to make sense out of this universe, it has to be "my" philosophy doesn't it?

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.

 

[lifegazer]

What about the part where you assume what perceived reality is. You assume its a vast illusion created by a superior intelligence.

I do not assume this at all. I deduce this fact.
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. But external processes do not force an object to have abstract/intangible experiences (sensations and thoughts), nor do they create them for that entity.
Only a Mind can have abstract experiences. And only a Mind can willfully create them for its own awareness.
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.

Then you assume that our consciousness is a part of the mind's consciousness

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

, then you assume we are all here to make a descision for the mind.

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

Then you assume that descision is whether or not to live or die.

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

Then you assume we'd all be happy if we decided that the mind exists and we need unity.

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

QM is not definate in the sense billard ball like partciles would be, but it still is a realm with definates. A particle with a 1/2 spin cannot suddenly change into a particle with no spin (spin is conserved). All energy must obey the heisenberg uncertainty principle. All particle interactions obey the probabilities seen in fynmen (sp) diagrams. etc, etc.

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?
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.

The universe need not understand them.

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.

 

[Wudang]

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.

Circular again. I assume the neurons, you assume the awareness.
In fact, it doesn't require a leap of faith. Your leap from sensation to identity is the leap of faith.

 

[RussDill]

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

I already explained to you how evolution and natural selectrion force pain apon minds. If you disagree, and think that impossible, prove it, otherwise, you are *assuming* that it another way

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

Once again, you assume that all these experiences are willfully created and not a product of evolution and/or external stimuli.

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.

You are using a circular argument, to say that a mind is the primal cause of all known/perceived existence is an assumption, you are right back where you started.

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

There are many philosophies that assume that a superior being creates many seperate consciousnesses known as souls. In your philosophy, you *assume* otherwise.

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

You assume that it cares about our choices. If there is a superior being, we could be here for other purposes then to make choices for the superior being.

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

so you do not disagree on this assumption.

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

You assume that if we all agreed that we are part of god, all suffering, misery, and inequality would end. This is an assumption. Mabye god would suddenly cease his experiment because its not interesting anymore and we would cease to exist.

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?

I never said you needed a machine, I made it quite clear that all you need is another particle interacting.

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.

Particle interaction is the essence of wave-collapse.

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.

More of your assumptions...yawn

 

[lifegazer]

Circular again. I assume the neurons, you assume the awareness.

Rubbish. The awareness of sensation is a direct inner-experience, not an assumption.

In fact, it doesn't require a leap of faith.

Incorrect. No philosopher can prove the existence of an external (to awareness) reality. Thus, any statement declaring the existence of such a realm is obviously made via a leap of faith.
Quite extraordinary really, that such philosophy as materialism could have had such an overwhelming impact upon humanity for such a long time. Thankfully, its demise has begun.

Your leap from sensation to identity is the leap of faith.

I told you that identity is equated to the awareness.

 

[Wudang]

I told you that identity is equated to the awareness.

And as I and others keep trying to tell you, that equation is yet to be proved. Until you prove that, no, in fact, until you understand that it's an assumption that needs to be proved you will continue be regarded as a very very silly person. Not a martyr persecuted for his beliefs, not someone misunderstood, just a very silly silly person.

 

[lifegazer]

I already explained to you how evolution and natural selectrion force pain apon minds. If you disagree, and think that impossible, prove it, otherwise, you are *assuming* that it another way

It is stupidity to suggest that the external environment forces abstract sensations upon an entity. You are living in denial if you think that sensations such as 'pain' are not self-chosen nor self-created. This argument applies to any sensation and for any entity which has them.
There is a creative entity who chooses to will abstract sensations upon its own intangible awareness. It's obvious.

Once again, you assume that all these experiences are willfully created and not a product of evolution and/or external stimuli.

External stimulae - even if there were such things - do not impose sensations such as pain or cold or itchy or redness upon an entity. If an entity has a sensation, then that entity has chosen to have it and has created it itself, for its own purposes.

You are using a circular argument, to say that a mind is the primal cause of all known/perceived existence is an assumption, you are right back where you started.

A deduction is not an assumption. Clearly, I have given reasons for stating what I am stating.

There are many philosophies that assume that a superior being creates many seperate consciousnesses known as souls. In your philosophy, you *assume* otherwise.

I'm going to shortly-start calling you a liar if you persist to ignore the fact that I have deduced my conclusions.

You assume that it cares about our choices. If there is a superior being, we could be here for other purposes then to make choices for the superior being.

Again, I gave reasons for what I said, but you ignore those reasons and just assert - again - that I am assuming what I have said.

As The Mind creates an awareness of being, for itself, then that Mind is the one making the choices it makes, as it perceives itself as us. Only one entity exists... with countless perceptions of being.

You assume that if we all agreed that we are part of god, all suffering, misery, and inequality would end. This is an assumption. Mabye god would suddenly cease his experiment because its not interesting anymore and we would cease to exist.

God's desire will manifest through 'us'. And it is impossible to embrace this philosophy as the truth and still desire to have division and inequality amongst man.

I never said you needed a machine, I made it quite clear that all you need is another particle interacting.

But particles are waves until measured or observed. How and where and when do waves meet if they do not collapse until observed?

More of your assumptions...yawn

You need to note the distinction between deduction and assumption. And then you need to counter the reason of deduction, rather than just labelling it "an assumption", thus facilitating an escape route giving you no need to address it.
This is what I mean by raising the quality.

 

[lifegazer]

And as I and others keep trying to tell you, that equation is yet to be proved. Until you prove that, no, in fact, until you understand that it's an assumption that needs to be proved you will continue be regarded as a very very silly person. Not a martyr persecuted for his beliefs, not someone misunderstood, just a very silly silly person.

"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.

 

[Iacchus]

Well, the point is that you don't start from believing and then finding reasons to believe.

Never said I did. In fact I'm speaking from almost 30 years of experience here.

You start with observing, and then trying to figure out why things are how they are. "God" is the most dangerous assumption, because when people decide on that avenue, they usually never learn anything else.

Am I asking you to assume that God exists?

It is great to ask a 'what if' question...but that is a place to start, after you have made some observations. From there, you have to make logical guesses about what follows from that question, then compare your answers to reality. When the reality doesn't match your guesses, you have to rejct those guesses...and most times you throw away the 'what if' question entirely.

The "reality" of my experience tells me otherwise.