The Experiment That Debunked Materialism

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I believe (but I may be wrong) you are mistakenly equating "determinism" with "materialism" (they are in fact separate philosophical positions). If this is the case then yes, "determinism" has been debunked by QM.

Yes but I think materialism inherits determinism as one of it's properties. And if we can say that determinism has been debunked we can essentially say that materialism has been debunked. But I mean all materialism really says is that everything is matter and energy. Well yeah... but what do people normally mean when they say "matter"? Aren't matter and energy really the same thing anyway? And if our so called matter is behaving in absurd ways like popping in and out of existence, being in more than one place at one time, being entangled with other objects, acting as some sort of abstract informational wave function when we stop observing it, and all these other bizarre things... there's hardly a chance in hell that's what materialists have in mind when they say "matter". And that's my point.




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Here is yet another experiment that debunks materialism.

Graph of Accumulating Deviations: The Complete Formal Database


The two following figures represent the history of our formal hypothesis testing. The first shows the Z-scores for more than 350 formally specified events in an ordinary scatterplot. While there is a noticeable positive bias, it is not easy to see its significance. Yet the odds against chance of this meanshift over a database this size are about a thousand million to one.



The second figure displays the same data as a cumulative deviation from chance expectation (shown as the horizontal black line at 0 deviation). Truly random data would produce a jagged curve with no slope, wandering up and down around the horizontal. The dotted smooth curves show the 0.05 and 0.001 and 0.000001 probability envelopes that indicate significant versus chance excursions. This figure can be compared with a "control distribution" using simulations of the event series.

The jagged red line shows the accumulating excess of the empirically normalized Z-scores relative to expectation for the complete dataset of rigorously defined events. The overall result is highly significant. The odds against chance are much greater than a million to one.


edit on 3/1/13 by JAK because: External quote tags added



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


The things we know to exist we have labeled and described as energy/matter .... This is "the stuff"... Can you describe the potential non material components of reality, or realities? How components can exist but not be considered "something"?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Consciousness and the double slit interference pattern: six experiments

First and foremost I want to thank everyone for responding.

The issue of the role of consciousness in the double split experiment exist because no apparent explanation has been offered alternatively. our resident materialist have requested citations and insisted that the idea is too fringe to even consider. This is not a hallucination or for that matter a mirage, the phenomenon exist. The is not a recent matter and I myself remember debating this when I was in my teens.

My citation of Young's relationship to this matter was from Wilkepedia and specific to the topic of the Double Split Experiment. Getting back to the issue of this phenomenon being real, I have very few problems with this as a reaction to observation. Its like glancing at what looks like a Corvette and turning, to really look at and it turns out to be an 18 wheeler.

This experience then having been scientifically verified and then so documented in "Nature" as a real phenomenon.

Seriously, when it comes of consciousness ,Materialism as a model falls apart and this matter is well documented.

This with respect to changes in Psychiatric hospitals and cause after the 70's.

Any thoughts?

edit on 3-1-2013 by Kashai because: Modified content



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
So here is the thing, are the materialist that have responded to this thread really serious about the idea that materialism can today explain consciousness???

Proverbially, " I am all ear's"




Finale

We hope we have convinced the reader that the problem of the neural correlate of consciousness (the NCC) is now ripe for direct experimental attack. We have suggested a possible framework for thinking about the problem, but others may prefer a different approach; and, of course, our own ideas are likely to change with time. We have outlined the few experiments that directly address the problem and mentioned briefly other types of experiments that might be done in the future. We hope that some of the younger neuroscientists will seriously consider working on this fascinating problem. After all, it is rather peculiar to work on the visual system and not worry about exactly what happens in our brains when we "see" something. The explanation of consciousness is one of the major unsolved problems of modern science. After several thousand years of speculation, it would be very gratifying to find an answer to it.


www.klab.caltech.edu...

Any thoughts?
edit on 3-1-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 




I believe materialism can explain consciousness....

the reactions that produce consciousness,, and that are at the bottom of the creation and up keep of life occur at much faster speeds then our consciousness is able to record at... is my thought about it.. as if there really is a level of reality that occurs at plancks length frame rate,,, as a film is made of many "pictures",, played in time,, and we cannot notice the individual frames... I believe the mechanism behind consciousness,, is a processor of quantized data in realtime, ( using "senses" to "make sense"), utilizing a complex memory storage.. to grow and know, and do, and learn,...

can you give an example of what the universe might be, if not a quantity of material of a quality?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


When it comes to Psychiatry examples like the life of Frances Farmer begin a rather serious discourse...

Any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


When it comes to Psychiatry examples like the life of Frances Farmer begin a rather serious discourse...

Any thoughts?


Im not sure how this is on topic....

anyway... can you give me an example of how the universe may not be materialistic?

How can materialism not explain consciousness? I ask again... if not materialism... what do you think consciousness is?
edit on 4-1-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


When it comes to Psychiatry examples like the life of Frances Farmer begin a rather serious discourse...

Any thoughts?


Im not sure how this is on topic....

anyway... can you give me an example of how the universe may not be materialistic?

How can materialism not explain consciousness? I ask again... if not materialism... what do you think consciousness is?
edit on 4-1-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


My impression is that reality is not completely communicated to the brain by the common sense's. The brain is essentially a quantum computer and with the proper training is can function as such. Materialism presents that what we perceive is all that there is. Consciousness is dependent upon its existence, only in relation to the material world and as it is commonly understood.

As I have stated and has also been presented by other members in this thread. There are serious discrepancies that also include a failure in an effort to apply materialism to a population. Respectively, variations in emotive in humans overwhelms the model offered in materialism. Further, the question of the double blind experiment, despite 200 + years of evaluation? Has not resulted in nothing of clarity to date and neither can it legitimately denies that consciousness is a factor.

The issue's with Frances Farmer is that she was not an exception, the way she was treated was more consistent with the proverbial rule. And so was Materialism in relation to Psychiatry. then the rule. You see the only way in science that that a conclusion can every be treated as fact is if it it tested on a population.

Any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


When it comes to Psychiatry examples like the life of Frances Farmer begin a rather serious discourse...

Any thoughts?


Im not sure how this is on topic....

anyway... can you give me an example of how the universe may not be materialistic?

How can materialism not explain consciousness? I ask again... if not materialism... what do you think consciousness is?
edit on 4-1-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


My impression is that reality is not completely communicated to the brain by the common sense's. The brain is essentially a quantum computer and with the proper training is can function as such. Materialism presents that what we perceive is all that there is. Consciousness is dependent upon its existence, only in relation to the material world and as it is commonly understood.

As I have stated and has also been presented by other members in this thread. There are serious discrepancies that also include a failure in an effort to apply materialism to a population. Respectively, variations in emotive in humans overwhelms the model offered in materialism. Further, the question of the double blind experiment, despite 200 + years of evaluation? Has not resulted in nothing of clarity to date and neither can it legitimately denies that consciousness is a factor.

The issue's with Frances Farmer is that she was not an exception, the way she was treated was more consistent with the proverbial rule. And so was Materialism in relation to Psychiatry. then the rule. You see the only way in science that that a conclusion can every be treated as fact is if it it tested on a population.

Any thoughts?


Oh sorry,, I thought you originally meant that you dont believe in materialism, with materialism meaning that the universe is materially composed of "something".

I, nor any other materialist would/should argue that all that exists is what we can see... I believe galaxies exist billion light years away that I cant see, I believe micro organisms exist on earth that I cannot detect directly with my brain. But if we are to argue over whether the universe is material, in regards to our own, and some objective definition of material/substance/quanta/realness/actualness/somethingness/ ..then we will have to be careful not to just be arguing semantics...
we would have to discuss the most fundamental constituents of the universe, the nature of space/vacuum,.. and what it would mean for the most fundamental "somethingness" of the universe to be "non-material"



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


For me any way, in order for a consciousness to be infinite it must also be finite.

So as to encompass all things.

Any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


For me any way, in order for a consciousness to be infinite it must also be finite.

So as to encompass all things.

Any thoughts?


Im not sure as encompass all things... These concepts are tricky because of words and their meanings.. and how acurately they may relate to reality...


"in order for a consciousness to be infinite it must also be finite"...... are you just trying to mess with me?

an individuals consciousness is not infinite.. in that 100 years ago your consciousness did not exist ( in the form it now is, as you)... and as far as we can tell when you die ... you ( your consciousness) will not exist....
finite things are measurable, countable,..

maybe you can say the potential of something like consciousness is infinite... in a totality kind of way... we can not measure all the consciousness in the universes past, present and future,, so we can say consciousness in that way is infinite.. but at the same time,,, it is most likely definitely a truth that there is at every moment an exact quantity and potential of consciousness... so just because we cant measure something, doesn't mean its infinite,,,

all in all i hate the statement you made, and it is meaningless nonsense unless you expand and embellish...and further say what you mean...

"in order of a consciousness to be infinite it must also be finite" ... please explain,, im very confused with the meaning and intent of that...

any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Ima you asked me what I believed in
This being an infinite God that is also capable of being finite. As far as person being alive before they were born, I also acknowledge reincarnation. Really I was offering that it is possible for the process of life after death to be material. In consideration that fundamentally, emotions are not subjective.

Any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Ima you asked me what I believed in
This being an infinite God that is also capable of being finite. As far as person being alive before they were born, I also acknowledge reincarnation. Really I was offering that it is possible for the process of life after death to be material. In consideration that fundamentally, emotions are not subjective.

Any thoughts?


ok so,, infinite god, that is all that exists? what do you mean by infinite god? infinity by definition might contain infinite finitenesses....



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Imagine infinite as a big circle.

Now this circle is infinite in size, which means it can get bigger or smaller on its own.

We are in that circle, and all current knowledge is in it too.

We are all a finite part in the infinite circle.

It can grow or collapse, but the limits to the circle are infinite.

there's parts in the circle where parts necessary to sustain our life are not there, yet it still exists.

there's parts where we think it might sustain life, but we won't know until someone actually tries to live there.

there's parts out there that we have no idea even exist.

yet our conscious allows us to know all of this.

Does our mind have the ability to tap into infinity but we are tied down to a position in our finite bodies?



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   


Uploaded on Jan 18, 2008

Truth is not objective, nor is it subjective. The truth is that reality has no ground, no essence, and is therefore empty. All the ten thousand things arise in relation to all other things and no thing in particular has any substantial existence in and of itself. Reality, unlike a this video, has infinite resolution. That means it cannot be reduce to some smaller components or pixels, it goes on and on, receding into itself forever.

"Just as a picture is drawn by an artist, surroundings are created by the activities of the mind." Buddha







posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai


Uploaded on Jan 18, 2008

Truth is not objective, nor is it subjective. The truth is that reality has no ground, no essence, and is therefore empty. All the ten thousand things arise in relation to all other things and no thing in particular has any substantial existence in and of itself. Reality, unlike a this video, has infinite resolution. That means it cannot be reduce to some smaller components or pixels, it goes on and on, receding into itself forever.

"Just as a picture is drawn by an artist, surroundings are created by the activities of the mind." Buddha




Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man




new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join