It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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?
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?
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?
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
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