The Astonishing Hypothesis

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Quantum mechanics hinges on principles that are beyond cause and effect mechanisms. Just like a kiss is beyond the brain chemicals of love and yet is still very very real within the context of love.

Ok, I guess we have to agree to disagree Angelica, I happen to believe the laws of thermodynamics are true. Therefor the effect cannot be "far beyond" the cause, it cannot be any greater in energy.

I agree that a mindset can affect your health. A study showed that thinking about generating muscle tissue generated 10% more muscle tissue than the control group. That's just one example of several, but the brain already controls everything. PPAR-Delta is a hormone the brain sends to the muscle tissue to trigger growth and absorption of adiposity. Thinking about generating muscle tissue may be accelerating PPAR-Delta hormones. That's microscopic, but not quantum and it's a very well known truth.

I don't see how any of it applies to free-will though.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, I guess we have to agree to disagree Angelica, I happen to believe the laws of thermodynamics are true. Therefor the effect cannot be "far beyond" the cause, it cannot be any greater in energy.

I agree that a mindset can affect your health. A study showed that thinking about generating muscle tissue generated 10% more muscle tissue than the control group. That's just one example of several, but the brain already controls everything. PPAR-Delta is a hormone the brain sends to the muscle tissue to trigger growth and absorption of adiposity. Thinking about generating muscle tissue may be accelerating PPAR-Delta hormones. That's microscopic, but not quantum and it's a very well known truth.

I don't see how any of it applies to free-will though.

Allow me to give you an example of what I was saying about non-linear effects. As Roland pointed out, we have an objective reality where things operate by cause and effect rules, but then say Roland, yourself and I join together in a room and begin to have a conversation. It becomes like a video game where you enter that other dimension for the fight. We create a new dimension. There are three of us. we are all thinking at the same time. Roland says something that linearly triggers me to think another thing, and at the same time, simultaneously, we all have completely individual thoughts that are in a different dimension from the causal one. We each come from effectively three different universes (theoretically speaking) in that we've been raised and conditioned by completely different environments and determinants. We have a whole situation, now. To break it up to be a linear one is to lose data and therefore understanding. There are dynamics and multiples causes, effects and functions going on at the same time. We need to use different criteria in order to FULLY understand this situation. There are causes and effects in place, but there is also a new dimension. These variables are both linear and lateral--this is holistic. Making a table on the other hand requires step after step in time and linearity, so its objective. Understanding the whole universe is beyond linearity, because the whole universe has all kinds of emergent systems as well as lateral ones along with causes, being a whole and all.

There is a very big difference between objective systems and humanitarian systems and therefore they have different dimensions than one another, all within the same reality system. If you try to fit the human systems ONLY into linearity, you lose understanding.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, heat requires a heat source, it requires a cause. You can go into spontaneous combustion, but I'd prefer to stick to things we understand, not the things we can't explain. Everything on the macro-level, our level, follows deterministic laws and none of that is change by the behavior of the quantum world. Take for example the solidity of the table, the table is 90% empty space, just electrons repelling or attracting each other. But to use the table is in-fact solid and unchanged by our knowledge of the quantum world.

But perhaps the biggest part of the puzzle IS the parts we cant explain... And I'm not suggesting knowing how things work in themselves makes us able to change them by will alone. But how we look at and interpret objects, and how we determine their use and significance, that's up to us. But I was gonna stay out of that one. Not too relevant either.

So, basically what I'm trying to get at is in terms of our own behaviour, we only need to look at ourselves. Dipping into QM or cosmology is just going to raise more frivilous questions. Especially since we have a very limited understanding of the quantum world, and it's probably only going to get stranger.

So we should limit our view to avoid confusion? That's what you're basically saying here. That brings up the whole question of how we then go about limiting, and who decides those limits for one thing.

The problem with free-will is that it cannot be caused to be free, by definition free-will is without cause and without influence. It's the only way it can exists as a free-choice system. All efforts to explain it, either behaviorally or physically always comes down to a cause. FFG says consciousness causes free-will, some suggest QM causes free-will, but these hypothesis are in defiance of the term free.

Free will does not demand total independence of everything else in the universe. Free will only requires that 100% is not explained and laid out by forces outside our minds. You only use free-will in the strongest possible sense, while I doubt many of your opponents do. Even if 99% of what we do is deterministic in nature, that still leaves a little bit for free will.

Besides, should free will be an illusion, it is definitely a necessary one. Otherwise motivation would be meaningless pretty much. A modicum of free will is necessary for any change, action and whatnot. Even if it can be closely predicted what we will most likely do. And we are creatures of habit in 99% of our actions certainly. But as long as we are nowhere close to 100% knowledge about anything about consciousness I also find it impossible to determine (sic) beforehand that it's 100% free will or 100% determinism. I find it hard to legitimately hold an adamant view on it at least.

Free will is not without causation and influences. It merely posits that we are able to NOT act on them if we so actively choose. Some would then also say that we have the ability to act without it necessarily being determinants all over the place making sure of it.

Peace
Dan

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, I guess we have to agree to disagree Angelica, I happen to believe the laws of thermodynamics are true. Therefor the effect cannot be "far beyond" the cause, it cannot be any greater in energy.

What do you say to these points? Remember the holon concept. Everything is a whole unto itself, and yet is a part of another whole. Classical physics is a whole unto itself within it's own context. And it is also a part of quantum mechanics since they share principles. Quantum mechanics has added new principles--otherwise, it would be known as classical physics.

"The failure of the theories of classical physics in accounting for atomic phenomena was further accentuated by the progress of our knowledge of the structure of atoms."

Above all, Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus (1911) revealed at once the inadequacy of classical mechanical and electromagnetic concepts to explain the inherent stability of the atom.

"Einstein's great original contribution to quantum theory (1905) was just the recognition of how physical phenomena like the photo-effect may depend directly on individual quantum effects. In these very same years when, in developing his theory of relativity, Einstein laid a new foundation for physical science, he explored with a most daring spirit the novel features of atomicity which pointed beyond the whole framework of classical physics. "

"These ideas, which were soon confirmed by the experiments of Franck and Hertz (1914) on the excitation of spectra by impact of electrons on atoms, involved a further renunciation of the causal mode of description, since evidently the interpretation of the spectral laws implies that an atom in an excited state in general will have the possibility of transitions with photon emission to one or another of its lower energy states."

"The peculiar individuality of the quantum effects presents us, as regards the comprehension of well-defined evidence, with a novel situation unforeseen in classical physics and irreconcilable with conventional ideas suited for our orientation and adjustment to ordinary experience."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...ks/dk/bohr.htm

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Allow me to give you an example of what I was saying about non-linear effects. As Roland pointed out, we have an objective reality where things operate by cause and effect rules, but then say Roland, yourself and I join together in a room and begin to have a conversation. It becomes like a video game where you enter that other dimension for the fight. We create a new dimension. There are three of us. we are all thinking at the same time. Roland says something that linearly triggers me to think another thing, and at the same time, simultaneously, we all have completely individual thoughts that are in a different dimension from the causal one. We each come from effectively three different universes (theoretically speaking) in that we've been raised and conditioned by completely different environments and determinants. We have a whole situation, now. To break it up to be a linear one is to lose data and therefore understanding. There are dynamics and multiples causes, effects and functions going on at the same time. We need to use different criteria in order to FULLY understand this situation. There are causes and effects in place, but there is also a new dimension. These variables are both linear and lateral--this is holistic. Making a table on the other hand requires step after step in time and linearity, so its objective. Understanding the whole universe is beyond linearity, because the whole universe has all kinds of emergent systems as well as lateral ones along with causes, being a whole and all.

There is a very big difference between objective systems and humanitarian systems and therefore they have different dimensions than one another, all within the same reality system. If you try to fit the human systems ONLY into linearity, you lose understanding.

I disagree with that and I see no need to introduce an alternate universe to explain thought.

Ahnimus

How does something exist without cause?

If one thing exists without cause, then many or all things may exist without cause?

Perhaps there is no causality outside of our human perception, what then goes on? Why does causality work? Why can we understand absolutely everything with causality, except that which can not be seen or tested?

How can we hypothesize that dark matter must exist because we observed the cause of it, then decades later observe dark matter?

The answer, because everything has a cause. There is nothing without cause.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I disagree with that and I see no need to introduce an alternate universe to explain thought.

Explain how you see it then. I've showed you my view.

You are a very linear and logical person, Ahnimus. It's my impression that you are waking up in the existential world. The giveaway sign is that you've used the word "absurd" seemingly unending times in the past few days. You are like me in that you need to find order to the absurdity. And you will. But first you've got to stop trying to put the absurdity into the old linear model. The new models are fighting to emerge for you. It's very exciting to behold quite frankly.

There are all kinds of energetic patterns that move all around us within the linearity that we see.

angelica

Ahnimus, allow me to help you understand me. I am at no time attempting to be scientific. I am a philosopher, and a mystic. I am using science principles to give structure to my views and philosophies on human systems and other patterns I see. So like you may use philosophy to augment science, I use science to augment philosophy. If you think I am being literal with my science, it makes sense that my ideas fall short so often to you.

Through the years science advances have given us new cutting edge models for understanding our surroundings on all kinds of levels. I'm almost purely relating quantum physics principles as a LIFE principles where they exist beyond atoms. Unless I'm quoting the scientist, or talking specifically about the actions of atoms themselves, I am using the concept symbolically to explain relativity patterns in human interactions.

Ahnimus

Hmm, I'm afraid to share this theory. It's an interesting theory of gamma coherence and quantum backward-time consciousness, to remove the 500 ms delay in conscious awareness. It's interesting, I'd urge you to watch it, but I'm afraid it'll be misinterpreted.

Session 4 of the Beyond Belief series
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/watch.php?Video=Session%204

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Why can we understand absolutely everything with causality, except that which can not be seen or tested?

In order to be accurate, we can only understand what we understand with causality. What we will know in 500 years will depend on principles we will uncover beyond causality, like with this new physics has emerged that further explains the physical world and has brought dramatic new discovery.

Why does causality explain so much? Like I said, it is a whole and also a part of the greater systems to which it belongs that we are evolving to perceive and understand. It is fundamental. We only understand objective things with causality. We don't fully understand inter-subjective or cultural effects entirely with causality--we need to add hermeneutics and interpretation to that mix. And we don't understand subjective effects by causality. This is why for a true theory of everything, we need to expand our models beyond causality. In terms of classical physics, causality is perfectly effective for our purposes.

I will be out for hours, but I will check out the video later. I'll be looking at it with a philosophical eye, though, rather than a science one because I can't help it.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

In order to be accurate, we can only understand what we understand with causality. What we will know in 500 years will depend on principles we will uncover beyond causality, like with this new physics has emerged that further explains the physical world and has brought dramatic new discovery.

Why does causality explain so much? Like I said, it is a whole and also a part of the greater systems to which it belongs that we are evolving to perceive and understand. It is fundamental. We only understand objective things with causality. We don't fully understand inter-subjective or cultural effects entirely with causality--we need to add hermeneutics and interpretation to that mix. And we don't understand subjective effects by causality. This is why for a true theory of everything, we need to expand our models beyond causality. In terms of classical physics, causality is perfectly effective for our purposes.

I will be out for hours, but I will check out the video later. I'll be looking at it with a philosophical eye, though, rather than a science one because I can't help it.

lol, then you will no doubt buy the theory 100% despite the fierce opposition to it. It is a scientific theory of consciousness, not a philosophical one.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Ahnimus wrote:

Hmm, I'm afraid to share this theory. It's an interesting theory of gamma coherence and quantum backward-time consciousness, to remove the 500 ms delay in conscious awareness. It's interesting, I'd urge you to watch it, but I'm afraid it'll be misinterpreted.

Session 4 of the Beyond Belief series
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/watch.php?Video=Session%204

I just finished painting a room in the house so I'm tired and on paint fumes...so I can;t add much at the moment.

...but I just have to say the woman that starts speaking at like 34 mins and 30 seconds totally reminds me of the stuttering kid with crutches on south Park. Hilarious!

The Q&A is quite interesting. Still watching...

Ahnimus

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I just finished painting a room in the house so I'm tired and on paint fumes...so I can;t add much at the moment.

...but I just have to say the woman that starts speaking at like 34 mins and 30 seconds totally reminds me of the stuttering kid with crutches on south Park. Hilarious!

The Q&A is quite interesting. Still watching...

Was that the young neurophysicist who says that the effect of anasthetic on gap junctions is inconsistent with the theory?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Ahnimus wrote:

Was that the young neurophysicist who says that the effect of anasthetic on gap junctions is inconsistent with the theory?

Yeah that's the one... She totally tripped me out

I also like the Indian dude who rolls his R's talking about the guys whose right Hemisphere believes in God but the left hemisphere is an atheist... I'm going to have to watch more of these... interesting.

Ahnimus

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yeah that's the one... She totally tripped me out

I thought she was hot

Ahnimus

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I also like the Indian dude who rolls his R's talking about the guys whose right Hemisphere believes in God but the left hemisphere is an atheist... I'm going to have to watch more of these... interesting.

Yea man, so far it's all very interesting. It's a lot to watch but very intriguing. Much more interesting to me than The Simpsons

You can watch it all at

http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Ahnimus wrote:

I thought she was hot

I'd dock at her gap junction...

The temporal lobe seizure thing...whoa.

Ahnimus

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I'd dock at her gap junction...

The temporal lobe seizure thing...whoa.

I just want a good looking woman to talk to me about brain science. That'd be perfect, lol.

Yea, the temporal lobe seizure thing was interesting, the galvanitic responses in different people is intriguing. I do agree that it should be tested for galvanitic response in atheists and to see if there is possibly a neural correlate for atheism. Perhaps it's that A1 Seratonin Inhibitor as mentioned with mesculine, I think it's very easy to hypothesize about that, but certainly warrants testing for clarity.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Ahnimus wrote:

I just want a good looking woman to talk to me about brain science. That'd be perfect, lol.

Yea, the temporal lobe seizure thing was interesting, the galvanitic responses in different people is intriguing. I do agree that it should be tested for galvanitic response in atheists and to see if there is possibly a neural correlate for atheism. Perhaps it's that A1 Seratonin Inhibitor as mentioned with mesculine, I think it's very easy to hypothesize about that, but certainly warrants testing for clarity.

I gotta find myself a sexy Neuroscientist.

I'd be interested to know how TLE progresses past the SPS stages and whether or not that even happens in X percentage of cases. It could have extremely wide implications.

"There are no good statistics on how many people have temporal lobe epilepsy, or what groups are most often affected."

http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/epilepsy_temporallobe.html

What Annie Druyan said at the end re: science and religion was fantastic.

angelica

I'm happy to report that I watched the entire hour and 48 minutes (but who's counting) and that I really enjoyed it! I felt the subject matter was covered in a fairly balanced way, individually by the scientists, as well as through arguments/counter-arguments, even though the athiest slant was predominant. Ultimately, I felt my view was also represented. And of course my view ultimately won out since I'm a believer in the whole view and all valid points and sides of the coin being respected and heard so that truth is done justice to. I see that the conflicting points all meld together harmoniously, especially when all contrast is done respectfully. I love that most of this was pertaining to the implications of the facts. That is the stuff of science that I enjoy--the ramifications. It made the anal technicalities endurable.

Ahnimus, you said "The quantum world as I understand it now is absolutely causal. Atoms do not pop in and out of a person's head. Also being that we are not atoms, but merely are at the mercey of atoms, the behavior of atoms are beyond our control, so our abilities are unchanged by the seemingly random nature of the quantum world."

In the video the first dude said this:

"Quantum consciousness can account for: 1) realtime unified experience and conscious control. and 2) connection to deeper reality of quantum platonic information imbedded in the universe." He also said: In the quantum world, there is no flow of time.

I am wondering what you make of this--how do you interpret the two points? Also, if at the quantum consciousness level there is no flow of time, do you acknowledge we are talking about a dimension that does not work linearly?