Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cold Hard Reality

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Please understand that I make a distinction between Jung's Collective Unconscious, relating to cultural development and shared human experiences, like death, birth, the family unity, and war; and the New Age Collective Unconscious, or Akashik Spirit, or Christ Consciousness, or Spirit, or "energy" concept where they believe we're all one being living through six billion masks so that it can experience life for itself.

I can respect Jung's theory, even if I don't agree with it entirely, because I can see the basis for it in actual cultural experiences and cultural traits. I cannot respect the New Age theory because everything we've learned about consciousness points to the opposite result.

As for materialism and consciousness, materialism does not need to explain consciousness. If consciousness is localized, and pertains only to the individual, then there's nothing spiritual or metaphysical about it, which means philosophy need not concern itself with consciousness. It is only when you consider consciousness to be divine, or something "special" that suddenly you need to seek a supernatural explanation for it.

~ Scribe




posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


If materialism were correct, naturally humans should respond to conditioning as animals do. The problem is, that does not happen. so insofar as the human condition, there is something beyond nature that is the result of human behavior.

That would be the simplest way of stating it and understanding why materialism is wrong.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by OneEleven
 


Do you find it interesting that you assume there are only two right answers to your inquiry?

1. my "world view" is illusory, and wrong.
2. your world view is illusory, but it is better to live in that illusion than to embrace reality.


Ugh ... you've entirely missed the point ... YOUR reality is NOT MY reality ... it's as simple as that ...

You say "The TRUTH is the world is an ugly place" . MY world is not an ugly place. This is not MY truth. This is you're truth. For someone who dosn't believe in the collective, you yourself are trying to build your own collective.

"Don't you feel like me? Come on guys, feel like me. My truth can be your truth"

Meanwhile, i'm trying to bring you around to my own collective. Ironic, no?

Which one of us is the white blood cell, and which one is the cancer? Each with it's own separate goal. One dark. One light. BOTH right, and both CONNECTED by being just one building block in a greater organism, but not COLLECTIVE in our goals.

If you feel like your world view is right, have fun over there ... To me, it sounds awfully gray and depressing .... I didn't paint that picture of YOUR world ... YOU did .. YOU created your reality ...

If you're happy with it, stay there ... You may want to get an umbrella ...



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


That doesn't really "prove" materialism is wrong. That just proves that there are things that we still don't understand. Maybe there is a natural reason for that - or not.

If we assume, then that is belief and not actual "knowing".


It is just a theory that the mind is in the brain, based on REACTIONS of neurons in the brain while thinking. The brain being a receiver of mind is another theory. We can't actually prove either way, so why talk as if we had the "facts" on either side ? (Materialism vs Non-Locality)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Kashai
 


That doesn't really "prove" materialism is wrong. That just proves that there are things that we still don't understand. Maybe there is a natural reason for that - or not.

If we assume, then that is belief and not actual "knowing".


It is just a theory that the mind is in the brain, based on REACTIONS of neurons in the brain while thinking. The brain being a receiver of mind is another theory. We can't actually prove either way, so why talk as if we had the "facts" on either side ? (Materialism vs Non-Locality)


Evidence based upon practical applications exist that, when it comes to actual conclusions related to materialism. Consciousness is beyond the models ability to ascertain. Curing a psychotic condition using materialism as an absolute, results in law suits and the closing of facilities, that offer such a theory as accurate.

What would you offer as an alternative to operant conditioning or positive reinforcement? The issue is that biology as we commonly understand it, explains the human condition. If it were in fact correct psychosis would be currently treatable applying such methods.

It is not...

Any thoughts?



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


If materialism were correct, naturally humans should respond to conditioning as animals do. The problem is, that does not happen. so insofar as the human condition, there is something beyond nature that is the result of human behavior.

That would be the simplest way of stating it and understanding why materialism is wrong.



Humans absolutely respond to conditioning. All advertising is conditioning. Ptsd is conditioning. When you hear a loud noise and you flinch, that is conditioning.



edit on 3-9-2012 by Tennessee77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
A "Cold Hard Reality", is that you can take a baby Tiger and train him or her to follow your commands as an adult (for the most part).....can you do that to a human being?

That is the problem with materialism....

Any thoughts?



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Tennessee77
 


Flinching is not a response to conditioning it is more a instinct, a desire to observe a phenomena before forming a conclusion. Conditioning in humans and the more intelligent animals, involves education.

That allow for alternatives for what exactly a stimulus, is that caused one to initially flinch in response.

Flinching is not a response to conditioning it is more a instinct, a desire to observe a phenomena before forming a conclusion. Conditioning in humans and the more intelligent animals, involves education.

That allow for alternatives for what exactly a stimulus is, that caused one to initially flinch in response.

Implied is that the, "Cold Hard Reality" is that human experiences are much more sophisticated than the life of your average Lizard who also flinch in response to a stimuli .

Any thoughts?
edit on 3-9-2012 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Evidence based upon practical applications exist that, when it comes to actual conclusions related to materialism. Consciousness is beyond the models ability to ascertain. Curing a psychotic condition using materialism as an absolute, results in law suits and the closing of facilities, that offer such a theory as accurate.

What would you offer as an alternative to operant conditioning or positive reinforcement? The issue is that biology as we commonly understand it, explains the human condition. If it were in fact correct psychosis would be currently treatable applying such methods.

It is not...

Any thoughts?



There is evidence on both sides, materialistic give "evidence" as to why a materialistic brain/mind makes more sense, just as you can give your evidence as to why a separate mind exists.

What if both of those ideas are wrong, and in the future we discover a perfect explanation that fits ALL of the evidence? That could be a possibility but most would not accept because they already took on the materialistic theory as 100% true, as the spiritualists did for the separate mind.

When dealing with reality, I think the best thing you could do is to stay open minded to both sides,

and to understand what is actual "knowledge" (knowing, provable - experience)
versus
belief (assumptions - evidence - clues)

I'm not painting "belief" as bad, but when it creates closed-mindedness on either side, it becomes bad, even if it is true, because that does not automatically make another's belief 100% false.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneEleven

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by OneEleven
 


Do you find it interesting that you assume there are only two right answers to your inquiry?

1. my "world view" is illusory, and wrong.
2. your world view is illusory, but it is better to live in that illusion than to embrace reality.


Ugh ... you've entirely missed the point ... YOUR reality is NOT MY reality ... it's as simple as that ...

You say "The TRUTH is the world is an ugly place" . MY world is not an ugly place. This is not MY truth. This is you're truth. For someone who dosn't believe in the collective, you yourself are trying to build your own collective.

"Don't you feel like me? Come on guys, feel like me. My truth can be your truth"

Meanwhile, i'm trying to bring you around to my own collective. Ironic, no?

Which one of us is the white blood cell, and which one is the cancer? Each with it's own separate goal. One dark. One light. BOTH right, and both CONNECTED by being just one building block in a greater organism, but not COLLECTIVE in our goals.

If you feel like your world view is right, have fun over there ... To me, it sounds awfully gray and depressing .... I didn't paint that picture of YOUR world ... YOU did .. YOU created your reality ...

If you're happy with it, stay there ... You may want to get an umbrella ...


There is only one reality. We all observe this reality from a different perspective, but we all share one reality. You can say that your perspective is your own, but we all share 1 single reality.

This world is a hard, cold, ugly, place. Life feeds on life. How else can you describe a reality where the only way to stay alive you have to eat, and that means you are agreeing to consume the children of some other living organism. The beauty comes in respecting this process and not pretending it is otherwise.

How can you say we live in a beautiful world when you know that somewhere out there, someone is being murdered. Someone is being raped. Someone is starving or freezing to death. From their perspective, they are not having a beautiful time. When you stop living in the illusion of a beautiful world, you will have no choice but to help others.

This world is also beautiful in the sence that it does follow rules. All processes can be explained in a mathematical and logical formula. Beliefs occur when these processes are overlooked or neglected.

Again there are no organs or even parts of the brain that send or recieve signals.
If you believe that there is you are wrong



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


Did you call?
JK...

I am glad you decided to do a bit of research on neuroscience. I think we butted heads before over science vs. spirituality (maybe not), but it is always good to look into the other persons side of the story. As I stated before, true science and true spirituality are compatible because both are inquiring into the unknown.

Previously, I defended mainstream sciences position on the topic of consciousness (since I study neuroscience), but only to push back against the dogma that the "universal consciousness" "all-is-one" crowd was spouting. In reality though, there is no real good evidence to support either position. On one hand, we have all the means of observing behaviors of "conscious" and "unconscious" neurons but no real understanding of causation for consciousness. Nor can we even observe consciousness itself, directly. So although science tends to work from the framework that consciousness is a derivative of the brain, who really knows whether or not that is true? No sincere neuroscientist will give you a definitive answer to that question.

On the other hand, we work within this framework (that consciousness is a derivative of the brain) because it allows for many other theories to work. Many theories still do not work under this model though so there is in no way a holistic understanding of the brain within the neuroscience field, at this time. Maybe it is wrong, maybe the brain is just a filter through which consciousness works (which would then call for a redefinition of the word "consciousness" because it would in no way resemble what people think right now).

If that is true, then the entire field, in fact all of science, will be forced to reckon with the fact that there is a mandatory paradigm shift that ALL scientific theories must now be adhered to, which would pretty much turn science on its head. Maybe that will happen in the future, the support is not there for it though, yet. But again, then we wouldn't really be talking about consciousness as we are now. It would more so resemble a field of information laden energy that drives neuronal activity, whereas the brain would be like the paper upon which someone writes.

But who knows?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Tennessee77
 


Flinching is not a response to conditioning it is more a instinct, a desire to observe a phenomena before forming a conclusion. Conditioning in humans and the more intelligent animals, involves education.

That allow for alternatives for what exactly a stimulus, is that caused one to initially flinch in response.

Flinching is not a response to conditioning it is more a instinct, a desire to observe a phenomena before forming a conclusion. Conditioning in humans and the more intelligent animals, involves education.

That allow for alternatives for what exactly a stimulus is, that caused one to initially flinch in response.

Implied is that the, "Cold Hard Reality" is that human experiences are much more sophisticated than the life of your average Lizard who also flinch in response to a stimuli .

Any thoughts?
edit on 3-9-2012 by Kashai because: Added content


Flinching is most definately a conditioned response. Baby's do not flinch.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


A problem being that as of the year 2012 modern science has not produced and effective way to adress the issue of Psychosis. The reality of the problem is quite serious taking into consideration, the materialist position.

The limit of course being conservative implications related to the extent of biology. This being that the human brain is simply an electro-magnetic process. If that were the case humans would respond positively to behavior modification. Back in the 70's there was an effort to produce results that homosexuality was actually a psychosis. One of the research efforts was in relation to what was called "playboy therapy". Essentially a person would receive an electric shock, if they became aroused by same sex, sexual activity.

The results were that Homosexuals tested, responded not be becoming Hereto-sexual. but by having no real interest in sex at all.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tennessee77

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Tennessee77
 


Flinching is not a response to conditioning it is more a instinct, a desire to observe a phenomena before forming a conclusion. Conditioning in humans and the more intelligent animals, involves education.

That allow for alternatives for what exactly a stimulus, is that caused one to initially flinch in response.

Flinching is not a response to conditioning it is more a instinct, a desire to observe a phenomena before forming a conclusion. Conditioning in humans and the more intelligent animals, involves education.

That allow for alternatives for what exactly a stimulus is, that caused one to initially flinch in response.

Implied is that the, "Cold Hard Reality" is that human experiences are much more sophisticated than the life of your average Lizard who also flinch in response to a stimuli .

Any thoughts?
edit on 3-9-2012 by Kashai because: Added content


Flinching is most definately a conditioned response. Baby's do not flinch.


You are suggesting that a baby would not flinch to the sound of a gun shot 40 ft away from, where it happens to be.

That does not sound realistic.

edit on 4-9-2012 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
On a separate note, if you want to know about the power of neuroscience and what our current knowledge is capable of, go look up ChR2 and Optogenetics. Using different frequencies of light, through the use of a laser, you can actually target particular neurons which in turn creates what is called "action potential". Doing this, neuroscientists have been able to turn a fly into a remote control device. They can make it take off and land on command.

Scary because you know who has been first to put their hands all over this (think remote controlled people), but cool because of the implications it has on our understanding of life and ability to address pathology.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 


Then of course there are bee's. Say for example a food source of bee's is on the other side of a lake. Now capture the bee's responsible for initially identifying a food source. Release them at the center of the lake, in a canoe, filled with plants ready to be pollinated. When these bee's return to the nest and identify a food source in the middle of the lake, the other bee's will reject such a conclusion.



In line with recent work in swarm intelligence research involving optimization algorithms inspired by the behavior of social insects (including bees, ants and termites), and vertebrates such as fish and birds, there has recently been research on using bee waggle dance behavior for efficient fault-tolerant routing.[16] From the abstract of Wedde, Farooq, and Zhang (2004)[17]:

In this paper we present a novel routing algorithm, BeeHive, which has been inspired by the communicative and evaluative methods and procedures of honey bees. In this algorithm, bee agents travel through network regions called foraging zones. On their way their information on the network state is delivered for updating the local routing tables. BeeHive is fault tolerant, scalable, and relies completely on local, or regional, information, respectively. We demonstrate through extensive simulations that BeeHive achieves a similar or better performance compared to state-of-the-art algorithms.

Another bee-inspired stigmergic computational technique called bee colony optimization is employed in Internet Server Optimization.[18][19]

The Zigbee RF protocol is named after the waggle dance.


en.wikipedia.org...




edit on 4-9-2012 by Kashai because: added content.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


You dont have enough time to convince anyone before the apocalypse. Not that you shouldnt try...

All minds are unique, through genetics or experiance. There are few people who will choose to live with the "Cold Hard Reality", by fault of the former or the latter. When artificial intelligence in all its glory is unleashed upon the public there will be nowhere to hide. The theory of a fractal universe will be the last thing to remain. It even has all the fluffy stuff that religious people love although its a bit complicated.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 
In My opinion, intelligence minus Imagination is just as useless as all the posting you rally against..In my observations...you lack Imagination.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tennessee77
When you hear a loud noise and you flinch, that is conditioning.

Absolutely not. Nobody has to 'teach' somebody to flinch at loud bangs. Infants and animals also flinch at loud sounds. It isn't taught, it's built in.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by arpgme
 


A problem being that as of the year 2012 modern science has not produced and effective way to adress the issue of Psychosis. The reality of the problem is quite serious taking into consideration, the materialist position.


Can't psychosis happen from messing with different areas of the brain? They even took someone who believed in God and tested both sides of their brain and one side believed in God while the other side didn't [1]. That would be evidence of a physical brain to a materialist.

Then again, it COULD just mean that - like a broken TV - the brain is not receiving the signal. But, it isn't PROVEN either way, and that was my point, so until then, it is just ONE possible explanation - but there may be others - and maybe one of the others is true, who knows...

And just because there is something that we cannot fully understand yet (psychosis) does not automatically mean materialism is false - how many theories did we come up with that had misunderstandings in the beginning? A lot.

This is like saying "We do not know what causes thunder so obviously it is Zeus".

It is close-mindedness on both parts the materialists and the spiritualists.
edit on 4-9-2012 by arpgme because: better expression





new topics




 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join