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)
The human that falls would observe himself falling, so no... it doesn't apply.
Also nobody said the tree doesn't exist. Just that it's not "rendered" until observed.
Also, the point is -- everything NON-CONSCIOUS is only rendered in the presence of the conscious.
Why should you and I be any less or more real than a rock floating through space?
Because the rock is not alive, therefor doesn't have consciousness because it lacks "mind."
The rock is very real, but only rendered by consciousness when it's observed.
A rock cannot be an observer unless the rock had consciousness. That is the prerequisite to being able to observe.
If you think people are the same as rocks, perhaps you should reconsider.
It's also NOT pseudo-science. It's philosophy based on scientific principle.
BIG difference. Pseudo-Science is as defined;
A field, practice, or body of knowledge, when presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but demonstrably fails to meet these
This was never presented as such. Just insinuated potential. Big distinction.
The implication is such that, God is a pseudonym for consciousness, and that -- before matter was "mind" therefor, material is made from the
"God made us in him image" could be taken literally as we are all fragments of this supreme consciousness.
This explanation is as likely as any -- and also pretty much guarantees the existence of the supernatural as well.
edit on 24-11-2012 by
Laykilla because: (no reason given)