An idea worth censoring: 'The Science Delusion'

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Bedlam

 

"Thoughts are processes, not tangible objects."

Given the existence of God, thoughts resulted in the creation of reality can you prove otherwise? If you cannot then how can you define yourself as a realist?

Any thoughts?

Asking for proof of a negative? Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create us all with a touch of his noodly appendages? No.

Ramen.

Originally posted by framedragged

Originally posted by vasaga
First we must have evidence that it's actually possible. It'll probably be a philosophical zombie, rather than something that actually experiences. But, we have no way of knowing that, do we? That's the exact issue I'm talking about. How do we know that something is actually intelligent (something that's intelligent must be aware, right?), and not simply responding to inputs?

We have no evidence that it's impossible

Uh... I really hope you have a better argument than that. It's impossible to prove a negative. I can also say that we have no evidence that the spaghetti monster doesn't exist. I hope you realize it's an empty (aka not a sound) argument. Another example.. Just because it's not impossible for me to have a baseball in my hand right now, doesn't mean that I do have it, or that I will ever have it. The possibility remains, but it's just that, until proven, which is impossible for the current scientific methods.

Originally posted by framedragged
and we have plenty of evidence that we can physically model a brain. If I used my handy dandy magical replicator machine and made a perfectly identical copy of you, down to the last neuron and intestinal bacteria, what would be different about you and it that would lead you to believe that the copy is a philosophical zombie? How would you be able to determine you weren't the copy in the first place, since the copy would be created with all of your memories?

You're already assuming it would have my memories due to everything in my brain being identical.

Originally posted by framedragged
What I'm really asking is: is your requirement for awareness/experience some sort of 'soul' residing entirely outside of the physical?

Not a soul. In general, I think Bruce Lipton's idea makes sense. Here's a link, it's not too long.
Part 1
Part 2

Originally posted by framedragged
No, my point was that if we did actually experience color differently then all we're doing is rotating or flipping the additive color wheel. All the relationships between the colors will stay the same; colors will add the same way, have the same complements, etc. If they didn't then RGB pixel displays wouldn't work for everyone. But they do, so the only possible difference between our experiences will be incredibly superficial and shouldn't really be that surprising in that its our own unique experience.

Yeah.. Like I said before, I get it.

Originally posted by framedragged
And who says that awareness isn't the processing itself?

By that definition, computers are aware. By default we therefore know that awareness is more than just processing. Besides, your brain processes a lot of stuff all the time. Most of them, you're not even aware of. For example, every time you breathe, your brain processes the signals that come from your nose, that feel the air flow through your nostrils, but you're never aware of them, except now because you've started paying attention to it since I mentioned it. That's another thing that's unreachable by materialistic science, but should still be taken into account.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Bedlam

 

"Thoughts are processes, not tangible objects."

Given the existence of God, thoughts resulted in the creation of reality can you prove otherwise? If you cannot then how can you define yourself as a realist?

Any thoughts?

Asking for proof of a negative? Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create us all with a touch of his noodly appendages? No.

Ramen.

Can you prove that everything that exist occurred by pure chance? This being just a funny as Flying Spaghetti Monsters. As I have already explained Modern Materialism has been debunked with respect to consciousness.

You really want to see somebody laugh go to a Psychiatric Facility and ask the Psychiatrists if they ever practice Operant Conditioning, Behavioral Modification or Pavlov's modeling (to name a few). Actually there was 1 private facility active about 8 years ago in the United States. It was shut down because they were electroshocking 12 years old 3 times a day for a week, before there home visits.

Do you know any thing about the changes that occurred as a matter of recent history. In respect to the horrific abuses that occurred as Doctors determined to establish materialism as the cure to the mentally infirmed back in the 1950's and 1960's? I mean seriously dude if consciousness were a house you guys are not allowed in the kitchen or for that matter are you taken seriously.

Get over it.

Let me ask this in general again, since people seem to really want to ignore it.

I assume some of you are saying that our minds, memories, thoughts, basically everything, is stored in our brains. Correct? If so.. Explain something simple to me. People have hit their heads, and due to damage to their brain, they lose memories. In this case, the view that memories are in there, makes sense. You could say, the storage device got damaged, and the data was lost. However, there have been a lot of cases, where the memory slowly returns over time. If they are stored in the brain, and the brain got damaged, how exactly are the memories restored? Care to explain how that fits the materialistic paradigm? It's the equivalent of dropping your laptop and that damaged your hard drive so windows has trouble booting properly, and over time it starts working better on its own. I'm really curious what you people can come up with to explain this phenomenon.

Seriously Bedlam do you really have any idea as to what you are talking about?

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Bedlam


This is way out of my "field" of knowledge but it looks like you are really just guessing at all this stuff.

How far off is this? Correct the errors please cause this is my first in dept look at neurology...

Brain cells use glucose to convert sodium/potassium ADP into ATP, thereby becoming ionized. (These ionized sodium and potassium ADP/ATP are stored in what is referred to as electrical synapses.) Upon access of the electrical synapses, the ionized sodium and potassium are triggered, released, and travel through [some channels] (electrolytes maybe), resulting in an "electrical charge", that somehow [materialistically] reads other neuronal information, interprets new information, and then goes on to store the said new information by creating new neurons with the newly released ionized sodium/potassium?

Color is caused by what are refereed to as "cones" in the eye's. The proverbial "terrible two's" occur when these cones develop.

Up until that time a child vision is restricted to perhaps black and white with very little if any depth perception. When the cones come into effect a child learns about color and a way cool ability to see depth in the way the rest of us see it.

reply to post by Kashai


So what causes this:



The eye cones or the brains [something or another].

reply to post by Bleeeeep




Gentlemen and Ladies this is a really interesting conversation.

reply to post by Kashai


That fit very well with the topic until he started talking about evolution and how "it" controls evolution. As to say life chooses it's own course of evolution - that I cannot agree with.

Something beyond plants and animals is injecting new information, thereby altering concepts and the path of evolution. (Imma go with God saying Be)

reply to post by Bleeeeep


A point being that while we treat what we observe as real it is only an aspect/part of what is real.

Imagine a wolf that can perceive reality in relation to quantum interactions, how would she or he find food?

Despite appearances each of us is made essentially (based upon what we know) of quarks and leptons and a bunch of empty space. The differentiation of our structure (cells, molecules, atoms and so on) is assumed to have something to do with us but this effectively could be a developmental issue.

There could be a time in the future when all of us will be able to walk on water.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Thoughts are processes, not tangible objects.

Well that then is another confusing use of term and statement. Because all tangible objects are also transient processes.

So with your statement you are trying to say thoughts are not matter in and of themselves, or information is non material? Even though thought depends on the material it depends onto exist, and the human beings own material depends on thought to exist? So is consciousness also a process not a tangible object? Do you have any idea how the process of consciousness, or thought works? You close your eyes and think of an invention, using memories stored, memories of materials, physics, societal needs, economics, and you formulate the blueprints of a tangible object in your mind. What is this thought process, that is looking around the brain and gathering information, and choosing to put it together in a specific way, how are you seeing inside your head, and how do you choose what memories you wish to access? Have you heard any theories as to how this mechanism of imagination works? with your eyes open right now looking around your room, are you viewing this information from the same place you view the information of your memories and dreams (using that same minds eye area?)?

Originally posted by vasaga
Let me ask this in general again, since people seem to really want to ignore it.

I assume some of you are saying that our minds, memories, thoughts, basically everything, is stored in our brains. Correct? If so.. Explain something simple to me. People have hit their heads, and due to damage to their brain, they lose memories. In this case, the view that memories are in there, makes sense. You could say, the storage device got damaged, and the data was lost. However, there have been a lot of cases, where the memory slowly returns over time. If they are stored in the brain, and the brain got damaged, how exactly are the memories restored? Care to explain how that fits the materialistic paradigm? It's the equivalent of dropping your laptop and that damaged your hard drive so windows has trouble booting properly, and over time it starts working better on its own. I'm really curious what you people can come up with to explain this phenomenon.

Say I live for 30 years. Storing memories this whole time. I know what trees are, lines, circles, colors, people, I know about human affairs, geology, some sciences, family members, politics, economics, machines, pop culture, history....

I get an injury and have some memory problems....

When I picture talk of neurons, I picture a root system, or tree branching, or fungal networks. a patch may get damaged, but then in time, roots could reconnect that network... and because all of your knowledge of everything prior about this reality, (all I labeled above) is not wiped out, you can use that information, to fill in the blanks, to reason, ration, infer, about things...

Say part of my memory loss was I dont remember my parents. but I remember that everyone does have parents, so I infer that i probably have parents, and then maybe i remember a childhood memory involving my parents that wasnt affected, and in that memory i see a glimpse of my mom, or even her hair color, and then that triggers something else.

So if memories are not stored analogly anyway, if they are imperfect recreations of reality, and they can have personal touches, and are malleable, along with the power of imagination, it is not hard to imagine, how one can use their mind, to recreate memories that were true, by using deduction and logic, from memories they do have. Or the neural networks simply repair themselves in time and retained bits of information.

Imagine all your memories like a giant etchersketlch,, and each nanometre can hold a tremendous amount of data/information/memory... and say a chunk of it got shaken up... it would be like using the edges and the entire side of memory that did not get messed up, to 'regrow' or create the missing puzzle pieces of the memory that got shaken and lost.

keep in mind this is a crude analogy just trying to touch even if but a little the essence of your inquiry about how a person after time can regain memories that were affected by damage.

reply to post by Kashai


"The differentiation of our structure (cells, molecules, atoms and so on) is assumed to have something to do with us but this effectively could be a developmental issue."

I think you need to reel it back just a little bit. If everything is considered to be controlled by perceiver, then how can we know that inanimate objects such as rocks, water, etc, do not perceive, and aren't the real controllers.

If perceiver controls all, then we cannot know if we are being somehow manipulated by rocks, by them moving the world around themselves.

I think we should say that something else is in control of animate and inanimate, and our mind/bodies are only in partial control of our own interpretations. [i.e we do not control the fact that we collapse the wave function - God did that to us]

Originally posted by vasaga
Let me ask this in general again, since people seem to really want to ignore it.

I assume some of you are saying that our minds, memories, thoughts, basically everything, is stored in our brains. Correct? If so.. Explain something simple to me. People have hit their heads, and due to damage to their brain, they lose memories. In this case, the view that memories are in there, makes sense. You could say, the storage device got damaged, and the data was lost. However, there have been a lot of cases, where the memory slowly returns over time. If they are stored in the brain, and the brain got damaged, how exactly are the memories restored? Care to explain how that fits the materialistic paradigm?

Memories are not stored in localized areas organized units, the memory was probably not restored with full fidelity---and it is well known that brains "interpolate" reasonable things to make false memories among true facts which are not distinguishable from the actual event.

It's the equivalent of dropping your laptop and that damaged your hard drive so windows has trouble booting properly, and over time it starts working better on its own. I'm really curious what you people can come up with to explain this phenomenon.

And what if you damaged your laptop's storage controller and decoder software, and it was made out of something with the capability to heal?

It is unwise to make an unsupported analogy about computing hardware and then believe it has anything useful to say about biology which is profoundly different.

reply to post by vasaga


Sometimes it is just the neural network that gets damaged and as it repairs connections memories are restored.

It would be like restoring electricity to a house. When there is a blackout the houses don't just vanish.

reply to post by Wertdagf


Explain phantom limb phenomenon? I think that is along the lines of is notion. (The mind reflects the spirit.)

Also, his original notion could potential explain reincarnation and the alike. The dreams of something you should have no notion of.

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Bleeeeep

 

Gentlemen and Ladies this is a really interesting conversation.

edit on 30-3-2013 by Kashai because: added content

I dont agree with what he said that, we will be able to zoom in forever, into quarks and so on, turtles all the way down. To me that seems not likely. This is why the plancks length was created, and is used in describing quantum mechanics. In my mind its more likely that the universe itself as a whole and as all its parts is the 'turtles', that is to say that instead of zooming into quarks for infinity, the fact that there are nearly infinite quarks is what is of significance, and that they all as a collective ( all the parts of the universe/the universe) came into existence together sharing a common point in time for its creation, is the direction that can be further zoomed.

Originally posted by Kashai



Can you prove that everything that exist occurred by pure chance? This being just a funny as Flying Spaghetti Monsters. As I have already explained Modern Materialism has been debunked with respect to consciousness.

Luckily, I don't have to, it's the null hypothesis, and you have to prove your conjecture is more likely. So, "it's random" is the default, Goddidit is your conjecture to be proven.

reply to post by Kashai


Can't see vids at work. Sorry.