It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Ajax84
Some fun ideas, but it's merely psuedo-science.
1. I think, therefore I am
2. Substance dualism is impossible
3. The mind cannot be reduced to matter
This is based on assumptions that're in fact not commonly held. One example is the comment by the philosopher. He claimed that life is strong emergence. This view means that life cannot be reduced to material things. This effectively allows the narrator to argue that the physical "substance" must have a mental property to interact with the mind. This forms the conclusion that all is mind. But anyway, it's a point that comes with humor. It's funny that so much can be concluded on so little.
It feels so contrived, I'm sorry. No disrespect. It's like a house of cards.
Why should you and I be any less or more real than a rock floating through space? When scientists say that we cannot speak discretely about the state of quantum processes before we measure something and therefore admit that some amount of locality or realism is absent, this is also an admission that EVERYTHING is subject to these rules. Not just a tree that's out in the woods that falls and nobody is there to see it. It also includes us. If a human falls in the forest and nobody is there to see it then is that human there or are they in fact non-existent until observed? I also think it's a bit prejudice against falling trees to suggest that they don't exist if not observed!
It's easy to believe what you want to believe if you cut corners. But ultimately scientists aren't allowed that luxury. That's why they can't enjoy this psuedo-science the same way we do. We can pick and choose what we want when creating our beliefs about the universe. Great life ,eh?
But in all sincertiy, no, life is not all great.edit on 24-11-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
Why should you and I be any less or more real than a rock floating through space?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by jessejamesxx
Sorry, but the philisophers who insisted it was only light from the steak, are no longer around to defend your position, as explained in the video.
That video was made by a world-famous physicist. Don't you think he knows the physics of how the light reaches your eyes?
Originally posted by jessejamesxx
But it's a fact. The light enters our eyes and our brain uses that information creating a picture of what surrounds us. I don't need a philosopher to defend that position.
Now is that ALL we see? Can we use the light to know what's going on around us? Yes. It's not one way or the other.