I am not writing a defense of these theories, I am criticizing your rather one-sided view. Not agreeing with you does not place me at the opposite end.
As for reductionism, it would also depend on what exactly it is you are reducing. The TV example you mentioned isn't very good, as humans made the tv from the parts, hence making it self-evident that knowing the parts will know the whole. Wholes that we didn't make from the outset are much harder to reduce, as we are more at a loss as to why it works in the first place. Science does then often make approximations after prolonged development on those issues, but are never in a position to claim full knowledge. Which is why you will see all the disclaimers your scientists often have. I feel you try to reduce way more than you really can with your theories and references, and as I often note, your references dont draw the conclusions you do quite often.
There is a larger burden of proof to be able to claim all (relevant) knowledge, than to claim that everything is not known or that we may not know the full picture. Reductionism, useful a tool as it is, may never be able to prove anything outside its limited boundaries, although we can use it to great effect within those.
Peace
Dan
The entire construction of the Television depends on scientific reductionism to begin with. Natural phenomena like electricity was reduced from other natural phenomena and then used to construct something useful.
When an engineer designs a rollercoaster, they first need a reductionist understanding of classical physics, or people will likely die when the cars fly off the track.
Reductionism is the core of almost all of our advances in the last 200 years, especially when it comes to medical science that saves thousands of lifes every day.
Nothing is lost in reduction, more understanding is gained, the initial impression of the so-called "whole" still exists.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Again, you and I disagree--we see things differently. I, like Byrnzie, see that when physicists are declaring "spirit" based on physics, well, then physicists are declaring spirit. I get that you disagree.
Pribram and Bohm might be great scientists, but they are not even doing philosophy.
I guess you'll have to take that up with wikipedia...let me know how that turns out....
"David Joseph Bohm (b. December 20, 1917, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania - d. October 27, 1992, London) was an American-born quantum physicist, who made significant contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project....
Bridging science, philosophy, and cognition:
Bohm's scientific and philosophical views seemed inseparable. In 1959, his wife Saral recommended to him a book by the Indian philosopher J. Krishnamurti that she had seen in a library. He found himself impressed by the way his own ideas on quantum mechanics meshed with the philosophical ideas of Krishnamurti. Bohm's approach to philosophy and physics receive expression in his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in his 1987 book Science, Order and Creativity. Bohm and Krishnamurti went on to become close friends for over 25 years, with a deep mutual interest in philosophy and the state of humanity."
~ wikipedia
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Again, you and I disagree--we see things differently. I, like Byrnzie, see that when physicists are declaring "spirit" based on physics, well, then physicists are declaring spirit. I get that you disagree.
I guess you'll have to take that up with wikipedia...let me know how that turns out....
"David Joseph Bohm (b. December 20, 1917, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania - d. October 27, 1992, London) was an American-born quantum physicist, who made significant contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project....
Bridging science, philosophy, and cognition:
Bohm's scientific and philosophical views seemed inseparable. In 1959, his wife Saral recommended to him a book by the Indian philosopher J. Krishnamurti that she had seen in a library. He found himself impressed by the way his own ideas on quantum mechanics meshed with the philosophical ideas of Krishnamurti. Bohm's approach to philosophy and physics receive expression in his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in his 1987 book Science, Order and Creativity. Bohm and Krishnamurti went on to become close friends for over 25 years, with a deep mutual interest in philosophy and the state of humanity."
~ wikipedia
This simply states that they can do philosophy and science. But that is not expressed in any of their quotes. You really need to educate yourself Angelica. There are many different speculations out there, you need a solid understanding of the science and philosophy yourself. Or else you are just picking and choosing who to listen to.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
A scientist comes out and says "Aliens exist, I've personally been abducted."
You expect the entire world, SETI and scientists alike to just drop everything and bow to the supreme knowledge of the person making the claim? It doesn't work like that, you need evidence and theories and they need to be tested and peer reviewed - by someone besides a science-fiction writer.
Or else, they are not doing science.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Philosopher: person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.
So everyone is a philosopher, who needs a degree?
Angelica, this is really juvenile. This is kindergarten philosophy. It's quite apparent to me now that outside of newage mysticism and some psychology concepts taken out of context, you really don't know that much. I feel like I'm debating a preschool student. I've asked you repeatedly to provide some explanation behind the QM interaction at the synapses or neuronal structure, but you don't, you just espouse rhetorical nonsense. There is no theory here to debate, just babbling, I've tried to get in-depth with you, but you are stuck at a very simplified view of argument. It's reminiscent of the children's debate "You are", "No, you are!", "No!, You ARE!" This is perverted philosophy, if one dares even call it philosophy.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Angelica, this is really juvenile. This is kindergarten philosophy. It's quite apparent to me now that outside of newage mysticism and some psychology concepts taken out of context, you really don't know that much. I feel like I'm debating a preschool student. I've asked you repeatedly to provide some explanation behind the QM interaction at the synapses or neuronal structure, but you don't, you just espouse rhetorical nonsense. There is no theory here to debate, just babbling, I've tried to get in-depth with you, but you are stuck at a very simplified view of argument. It's reminiscent of the children's debate "You are", "No, you are!", "No!, You ARE!" This is perverted philosophy, if one dares even call it philosophy.
You're debating your own conflicts.
I'm presenting information for those who are interested in the views within physics by quantum physicists who see the holism of the universe wherein spirituality and science exist harmoniously within the whole, and who integrate their spiritual beliefs into their science.
Your false assumptions, obfuscation, and accusations of "wrong" based on your personal preference is not "getting deep", imo. And your repeated attempts to degrade what you do not understand continue to show your subjective position and lack of objectivity. Objective seeking is not about name calling, etc.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Reading over the theories of Quantum Approaches to Consciousness in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's apparent that I've already addressed the underlying assumptions of such theories. The problem of Planck's Constant in the Synatpic Cleft, the role microtubuli play in the cytoskeleton of the nerve cell, etc..
The encyclopedia clearly states the purely philosophical problems with these theories:
Each of the examples discussed in this overview has both promising and problematic aspects. The approach by Beck and Eccles is most detailed and concrete with respect to the application of standard quantum mechanics to the process of exocytosis. However, it does not solve the problem of how the activity of single synapses enters the dynamics of neural assemblies, and it leaves mental causation of quantum processes as a mere claim. Stapp's approach suggests a radically expanded ontological basis for both the mental domain and status-quo quantum theory as a theory of matter without essentially changing the formalism of quantum theory. Although related to inspiring philosophical and some psychological background, it still lacks empirical confirmation. The proposal by Penrose and Hameroff exceeds the domain of present-day quantum theory by far and is the most speculative example among those discussed. It is not easy to see how the picture as a whole can be formally worked out and put to empirical test.
The approach initiated by Umezawa is embedded in the framework of quantum field theory, more broadly applicable and formally more sophisticated than standard quantum mechanics. It refers directly to the activity of neuronal assemblies as the neural correlates of mental representations. A clear conceptual distinction between brain states and mental states is most often missing, although the approach is not intended to be reductionistic. Vitiello's more recent accounts offer some clarifying hints in that direction, which point to an understanding in terms of a dual-aspect approach. Other such approaches, like those of Pauli and Jung and of Bohm and Hiley, are conceptually more transparent in this respect. On the other hand, they are essentially unsatisfactory with regard to a sound formal basis and concrete empirical scenarios. A novel dual-aspect quantum proposal by Primas, based on the distinction between tensed mental time and tenseless physical time, marks a significant step forward, particularly as concerns a consistent formal framework.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm presenting information for those who are interested in the views within physics by quantum physicists who see the holism of the universe wherein spirituality and science exist harmoniously within the whole, and who integrate their spiritual beliefs into their science.
Your false assumptions, obfuscation, and accusations of "wrong" based on your personal preference is not "getting deep", imo. And your repeated attempts to degrade what you do not understand continue to show your subjective position and lack of objectivity. Objective seeking is not about name calling, etc.
You have represented nothing of the sort Angelica.
This would be representing quantum theories of consciosuness:
Probably the most concrete and detailed suggestion of how quantum mechanics can play a role in brain processes is due to Beck and Eccles (1992), later refined by Beck (2001). It refers to particular mechanisms of information transfer at the synaptic cleft. However, ways in which these quantum processes might be relevant for mental activity, and in which their interactions with mental states are conceived, remain unclarified to the present day.
As presented in Section 3.2, the information flow between neurons in chemical synapses is initiated by the release of transmitters in the presynaptic terminal. This process is called exocytosis, and it is triggered by an arriving nerve impulse with some small probability. In order to describe the trigger mechanism in a statistical way, thermodynamics or quantum mechanics can be invoked. A look at the corresponding energy egimes shows (Beck and Eccles 1992) that quantum processes are distinguishable from thermal processes for energies higher than 10-2 eV (at room temperature). Assuming a typical length scale for biological microsites of the order of several nanometers, an effective mass below 10 electron masses is sufficient to ensure that quantum processes prevail over thermal processes.
The upper limit of the time scale of such processes in the quantum regime is of the order of 10-12 sec. This is significantly shorter than the time scale of cellular processes, which is 10-9 sec and longer. The sensible difference between the two time scales makes it possible to treat the corresponding processes as decoupled from one another.
But as you can see, stating the science actually debunks the theory.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
A philospher is one who philosophizes. Like a runner is one who runs. Do you need to be in the olympics to be a runner? No. One who reads is a reader.
Then what is the significance of pointing out that Byrnzie has a degree in philosophy.
At one post you try to degrade my points by stating that Byrnzie has a degree in philosophy, obviously in contrast to the fact that I don't, but on another post you degrade the value of a degree to basically nothing.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Consciousness appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Quantum Mechanics appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Therefor, all consciousness are quantum events and quantum events are conscious.
Maybe, your pal Byrnzie, can point out to you why that is logically fallacious.
All strawberries are red
All cherries are red
Therefor, all strawberries are cherries and all cherries are strawberries.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Then what is the significance of pointing out that Byrnzie has a degree in philosophy.
At one post you try to degrade my points by stating that Byrnzie has a degree in philosophy, obviously in contrast to the fact that I don't, but on another post you degrade the value of a degree to basically nothing.
If I outrightly put you down, that is degrading you. If I make a factual statement about another person, I'm responsible for what I specifically say, and my intent. Two different things.
I pointed out Byrnzie had a philosophy degree because I thought it was really funny! I thought it interesting that you were going on about what philosphers do/don't do/and what they should do. You were judging Byrnzie's "positive knowledge claim" by your standards, as if he's expected to go by your own definitions of what people "should/shouldn't" say. As if people, or philosophy in general had your standard to live up to.
I thought a little dose of reality would be fun.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Consciousness appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Quantum Mechanics appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Therefor, all consciousness are quantum events and quantum events are conscious.
Maybe, your pal Byrnzie, can point out to you why that is logically fallacious.
All strawberries are red
All cherries are red
Therefor, all strawberries are cherries and all cherries are strawberries.
You continually point to your own lack of comprehension and project it onto esteemed thinkers, implying the flaw is with them, while others understand and "get" what they are saying. When arrogance gets in the way of truth seeking, you'll learn the hard and humbling way. You're on your own if you can't make sense of what they theorize.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You continually point to your own lack of comprehension and project it onto esteemed thinkers, implying the flaw is with them, while others understand and "get" what they are saying. When arrogance gets in the way of truth seeking, you'll learn the hard and humbling way. You're on your own if you can't make sense of what they theorize.
Fuck off.
Just give a detailed explanation and then it will be comprehensible.
I understand the intricate workings of computer hardware and network systems. I can program in 3 different languages and speak two different human languages. I have a semi-sophisticated understanding of neuroscience, psychology and developmental psychology. I understand basic physics and draw on a lot of knowledge of quantum physics from people like Murray Gell-Mann. I'm on my second Neuroscience book this week! I spend almost all of my time learning and understanding complex things.
Don't talk down to me. I can understand anything that is coherent. Just make it coherent.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If I outrightly put you down, that is degrading you. If I make a factual statement about another person, I'm responsible for what I specifically say, and my intent. Two different things.
I pointed out Byrnzie had a philosophy degree because I thought it was really funny! I thought it interesting that you were going on about what philosphers do/don't do/and what they should do. You were judging Byrnzie's "positive knowledge claim" by your standards, as if he's expected to go by your own definitions of what people "should/shouldn't" say. As if people, or philosophy in general had your standard to live up to.
I thought a little dose of reality would be fun.
You are missing a lot of reality Angelica. You have one toe in reality and the rest is in fantasy land.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Just give a detailed explanation and then it will be comprehensible.
I understand the intricate workings of computer hardware and network systems. I can program in 3 different languages and speak two different human languages. I have a semi-sophisticated understanding of neuroscience, psychology and developmental psychology. I understand basic physics and draw on a lot of knowledge of quantum physics from people like Murray Gell-Mann. I'm on my second Neuroscience book this week! I spend almost all of my time learning and understanding complex things.
Don't talk down to me. I can understand anything that is coherent. Just make it coherent.
Consciousness appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Quantum Mechanics appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Therefor, all consciousness are quantum events and quantum events are conscious.
Maybe, your pal Byrnzie, can point out to you why that is logically fallacious.
If you are not ready to understand or appreciate this theory, that is understandable. It's definitely not for everyone. Our subjective filters determine what we are willing/ready to hear. When you draw simplistic, innacurate judgments on something, though, it shows you are being simplistic and judgmental.
For the guy who is so adamant about the "rules" of philosophy, you seen to gloss over epistemology and your own inner processes that affect what you see.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You are missing a lot of reality Angelica. You have one toe in reality and the rest is in fantasy land.
If living my dream life is a fantasy, then, yes!! I love this fantasy!! If "reality", in your definition, is being tied to material life only, you're quite right that it's not something I'm big on.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If you are not ready to understand or appreciate this theory, that is understandable. It's definitely not for everyone. Our subjective filters determine what we are willing/ready to hear. When you draw simplistic, innacurate judgments on something, though, it shows you are being simplistic and judgmental.
For the guy who is so adamant about the "rules" of philosophy, you seen to gloss over epistemology and your own inner processes that affect what you see.
What the hell are you babbling about?
I just acknowledged how they draw their conclusions, or at least, that is all that is apparent in any of the crap you've posted or I've read online. I'm not glossing over epistemology, you are.
Epistemologically, this form of acquisition of knowledge is so-called a priori. Examples of which are Phlogiston Theory, Flat-Earth Theory, Cartesian Dualism and Vitalism. These were theories based on the epistemology that simply experiencing a phenomena opens the door to a priori knowledge, or knowledge simply by intuitive reasoning. All of these theories turned out to be wrong after hundreds of years. This is why science stresses empricism and a posteriori acquisition of knowledge.
I am not glossing over epistemology, you are denying it's history.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I just acknowledged how they draw their conclusions, or at least, that is all that is apparent in any of the crap you've posted or I've read online.
What I see is that you are demonstrating your shallow view of these theories.
I'm not glossing over epistemology, you are.
American Heritage dictionary defines epistemology as: The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
When you keep erroneously assuming inaccurately as you've done throughout this debate: ie: assuming I am defending Michael Talbot's view rather than David Bohm's actual words. Or David Bohm is not a philosopher, etc. That's about your false attainment of "knowledge".
And in that past post where you attempt to degrade David Bohm's or whomevers "fallacious logic"--the fallacious logic is inherent to your fallacious "straw man" argument. Your argument is not an actual argument of David Bohm's. Therefore David Bohm (Or Pribram, or Wolf) are not responsible for a fallacious argument you cook up and falsely attribute to them.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Consider an example. When William Harvey (1578 - 1657) began research on the heart, his guiding question was this: exactly where in the heart are the "vital spirits concocted? His question reflected the respectable, conventional, too-obvious-to-be-questioned wisdom of his time. According to this conventional wisdom, blood was continuously and copiously made in the liver. The job of the heart was to make vital spirits (by virtue of which life existed) by mixing air from the lungs with blood from the liver. The reason death followed the cessation of heartbeat was that the vital spirits ceased to be concocted.
In one of the great stories of science. Harvey ended up discovering something utterly different from what he sought. He discovered that the heart was actually a meaty pump, blood circulates around the body, and blood is continuously made, but not by the pint per minute and not in the liver at all. Shockingly, Harvey's discoveries implied that almost certainly there were no vital spirits concocted in the heart--or anywhere else either. TO come to see this, he had to doff the conceptual lenses of the framework of spirits --vital, animal, and natural--and don a completely different set of lenses. This he did: "Medical schools admit three kinds of spirits: the natural spirits flowing through the veins, the vital spirits through the arteries , and the animal spirits through the nerves,... but we have found none of these spirits by dissection, neither in the veins, nerves, arteries nor other parts of living animals." Thenceforth the conceptual framework of spirits was in decline
Patricia Smith Churchland Brain-Wise pg. 256-257 An Introduction to Epistemology
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What I see is that you are demonstrating your shallow view of these theories.
American Heritage dictionary defines epistemology as: The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
When you keep erroneously assuming inaccurately as you've done throughout this debate: ie: assuming I am defending Michael Talbot's view rather than David Bohm's actual words. Or David Bohm is not a philosopher, etc. That's about your false attainment of "knowledge".
And in that past post where you attempt to degrade David Bohm's or whomevers "fallacious logic"--the fallacious logic is inherent to your fallacious "straw man" argument. Your argument is not an actual argument of David Bohm's. Therefore David Bohm (Or Pribram, or Wolf) are not responsible for a fallacious argument you cook up and falsely attribute to them.
Go ahead and describe their argument better. Don't just quote huge sections of interviews with them. What is their central thesis?
It is as I've said it is, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also points out the huge conceptual gap between quantum events and conscious events.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Go ahead and describe their argument better. Don't just quote huge sections of interviews with them. What is their central thesis?
It is as I've said it is, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also points out the huge conceptual gap between quantum events and conscious events.
I'm not at all here to describe their argument. I made a few points earlier. If you choose to take that out of context and create a straw man argument about their whole theory, go to town. It's just not accurate.
Because Artistotle believed one thing did not dictate what everyone else would philosophically believe till the end of time. That's the beauty of philosophy. We're entitled to freely think.
When you sneak around with cheap shots, straw men and misattribution, rather than intelligently ask questions or challenge specific points, yes, you remain safe from acknowledging your own misconceptions. And still you paint yourself into an intellectually false corner that is about your brain programming, rather than about understanding.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm not at all here to describe their argument. I made a few points earlier. If you choose to take that out of context and create a straw man argument about their whole theory, go to town. It's just not accurate.
Because Artistotle believed one thing did not dictate what everyone else would philosophically believe till the end of time. That's the beauty of philosophy. We're entitled to freely think.
When you sneak around with cheap shots, straw men and misattribution, rather than intelligently ask questions or challenge specific points, yes, you remain safe from acknowledging your own misconceptions. And still you paint yourself into an intellectually false corner that is about your brain programming, rather than about understanding.
This is what you are doing Angelica.
I have tried to debate the theories, I've gone all over looking for the central point. It turns out there isn't one, just a long stretching speculation between two completely separate areas of science. I've even talked about Penrose and Hammeroff's ideas and other theories of quantum consciousness. We've talked epistemology, or rather, I've talked epistemology. You haven't said anything, except to attack me. Your only argument is that I'm not seeing it, whatever it is and you claim it's because of some perceptual block I have. That is a strawman if I ever heard one. You fancy yourself some kind of guru on consciousness, but it's apparent to me that you don't know a damn thing. The only reason I'm even spending the time on this is so that there is some objectivity on this board. Not to mention, this was a thread I created to get some idea of the logic leading up to a belief in spirits/souls. You provided your illogic and I dissected it and pointed out the problems with it. It's over. Unless you have something to add to the logic or some other method you want to espouse, then there is no point in discussing this further.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I have tried to debate the theories, I've gone all over looking for the central point. It turns out there isn't one, just a long stretching speculation between two completely separate areas of science. I've even talked about Penrose and Hammeroff's ideas and other theories of quantum consciousness. We've talked epistemology, or rather, I've talked epistemology. You haven't said anything, except to attack me. Your only argument is that I'm not seeing it, whatever it is and you claim it's because of some perceptual block I have. That is a strawman if I ever heard one. You fancy yourself some kind of guru on consciousness, but it's apparent to me that you don't know a damn thing. The only reason I'm even spending the time on this is so that there is some objectivity on this board. Not to mention, this was a thread I created to get some idea of the logic leading up to a belief in spirits/souls. You provided your illogic and I dissected it and pointed out the problems with it. It's over. Unless you have something to add to the logic or some other method you want to espouse, then there is no point in discussing this further.
I'm comfortable with the fact that only I define myself, by my thoughts/words/deeds. As do our "experts" by their thoughts/words/deeds. I understand people will see what they see.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Good luck with that one. I couldn't get an accurate definition of one, let alone the differences.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm thinking one is individualized and "personal" (soul) while Spirit is universal and everywhere. Although it looks like deadnothingbetter is the expert on the subject. This is not a concept I was raised with in any way.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
The entire construction of the Television depends on scientific reductionism to begin with. Natural phenomena like electricity was reduced from other natural phenomena and then used to construct something useful.
When an engineer designs a rollercoaster, they first need a reductionist understanding of classical physics, or people will likely die when the cars fly off the track.
Reductionism is the core of almost all of our advances in the last 200 years, especially when it comes to medical science that saves thousands of lifes every day.
Nothing is lost in reduction, more understanding is gained, the initial impression of the so-called "whole" still exists.
I guess you'll have to take that up with wikipedia...let me know how that turns out....
"David Joseph Bohm (b. December 20, 1917, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania - d. October 27, 1992, London) was an American-born quantum physicist, who made significant contributions in the fields of theoretical physics, philosophy and neuropsychology, and to the Manhattan Project....
Bridging science, philosophy, and cognition:
Bohm's scientific and philosophical views seemed inseparable. In 1959, his wife Saral recommended to him a book by the Indian philosopher J. Krishnamurti that she had seen in a library. He found himself impressed by the way his own ideas on quantum mechanics meshed with the philosophical ideas of Krishnamurti. Bohm's approach to philosophy and physics receive expression in his 1980 book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, and in his 1987 book Science, Order and Creativity. Bohm and Krishnamurti went on to become close friends for over 25 years, with a deep mutual interest in philosophy and the state of humanity."
~ wikipedia
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
This simply states that they can do philosophy and science. But that is not expressed in any of their quotes. You really need to educate yourself Angelica. There are many different speculations out there, you need a solid understanding of the science and philosophy yourself. Or else you are just picking and choosing who to listen to.
A scientist comes out and says "Aliens exist, I've personally been abducted."
You expect the entire world, SETI and scientists alike to just drop everything and bow to the supreme knowledge of the person making the claim? It doesn't work like that, you need evidence and theories and they need to be tested and peer reviewed - by someone besides a science-fiction writer.
Or else, they are not doing science.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So everyone is a philosopher, who needs a degree?
Angelica, this is really juvenile. This is kindergarten philosophy. It's quite apparent to me now that outside of newage mysticism and some psychology concepts taken out of context, you really don't know that much. I feel like I'm debating a preschool student. I've asked you repeatedly to provide some explanation behind the QM interaction at the synapses or neuronal structure, but you don't, you just espouse rhetorical nonsense. There is no theory here to debate, just babbling, I've tried to get in-depth with you, but you are stuck at a very simplified view of argument. It's reminiscent of the children's debate "You are", "No, you are!", "No!, You ARE!" This is perverted philosophy, if one dares even call it philosophy.
I'm presenting information for those who are interested in the views within physics by quantum physicists who see the holism of the universe wherein spirituality and science exist harmoniously within the whole, and who integrate their spiritual beliefs into their science.
Your false assumptions, obfuscation, and accusations of "wrong" based on your personal preference is not "getting deep", imo. And your repeated attempts to degrade what you do not understand continue to show your subjective position and lack of objectivity. Objective seeking is not about name calling, etc.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
A philospher is one who philosophizes. Like a runner is one who runs. Do you need to be in the olympics to be a runner? No. One who reads is a reader.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The encyclopedia clearly states the purely philosophical problems with these theories:
You have represented nothing of the sort Angelica.
This would be representing quantum theories of consciosuness:
But as you can see, stating the science actually debunks the theory.
Then what is the significance of pointing out that Byrnzie has a degree in philosophy.
At one post you try to degrade my points by stating that Byrnzie has a degree in philosophy, obviously in contrast to the fact that I don't, but on another post you degrade the value of a degree to basically nothing.
Consciousness appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Quantum Mechanics appears to be diffuse and "holonic"
Therefor, all consciousness are quantum events and quantum events are conscious.
Maybe, your pal Byrnzie, can point out to you why that is logically fallacious.
All strawberries are red
All cherries are red
Therefor, all strawberries are cherries and all cherries are strawberries.
I pointed out Byrnzie had a philosophy degree because I thought it was really funny! I thought it interesting that you were going on about what philosphers do/don't do/and what they should do. You were judging Byrnzie's "positive knowledge claim" by your standards, as if he's expected to go by your own definitions of what people "should/shouldn't" say. As if people, or philosophy in general had your standard to live up to.
I thought a little dose of reality would be fun.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Fuck off.
Just give a detailed explanation and then it will be comprehensible.
I understand the intricate workings of computer hardware and network systems. I can program in 3 different languages and speak two different human languages. I have a semi-sophisticated understanding of neuroscience, psychology and developmental psychology. I understand basic physics and draw on a lot of knowledge of quantum physics from people like Murray Gell-Mann. I'm on my second Neuroscience book this week! I spend almost all of my time learning and understanding complex things.
Don't talk down to me. I can understand anything that is coherent. Just make it coherent.
You are missing a lot of reality Angelica. You have one toe in reality and the rest is in fantasy land.
If you are not ready to understand or appreciate this theory, that is understandable. It's definitely not for everyone. Our subjective filters determine what we are willing/ready to hear. When you draw simplistic, innacurate judgments on something, though, it shows you are being simplistic and judgmental.
For the guy who is so adamant about the "rules" of philosophy, you seen to gloss over epistemology and your own inner processes that affect what you see.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What the hell are you babbling about?
I just acknowledged how they draw their conclusions, or at least, that is all that is apparent in any of the crap you've posted or I've read online. I'm not glossing over epistemology, you are.
Epistemologically, this form of acquisition of knowledge is so-called a priori. Examples of which are Phlogiston Theory, Flat-Earth Theory, Cartesian Dualism and Vitalism. These were theories based on the epistemology that simply experiencing a phenomena opens the door to a priori knowledge, or knowledge simply by intuitive reasoning. All of these theories turned out to be wrong after hundreds of years. This is why science stresses empricism and a posteriori acquisition of knowledge.
I am not glossing over epistemology, you are denying it's history.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
American Heritage dictionary defines epistemology as: The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
When you keep erroneously assuming inaccurately as you've done throughout this debate: ie: assuming I am defending Michael Talbot's view rather than David Bohm's actual words. Or David Bohm is not a philosopher, etc. That's about your false attainment of "knowledge".
And in that past post where you attempt to degrade David Bohm's or whomevers "fallacious logic"--the fallacious logic is inherent to your fallacious "straw man" argument. Your argument is not an actual argument of David Bohm's. Therefore David Bohm (Or Pribram, or Wolf) are not responsible for a fallacious argument you cook up and falsely attribute to them.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
In one of the great stories of science. Harvey ended up discovering something utterly different from what he sought. He discovered that the heart was actually a meaty pump, blood circulates around the body, and blood is continuously made, but not by the pint per minute and not in the liver at all. Shockingly, Harvey's discoveries implied that almost certainly there were no vital spirits concocted in the heart--or anywhere else either. TO come to see this, he had to doff the conceptual lenses of the framework of spirits --vital, animal, and natural--and don a completely different set of lenses. This he did: "Medical schools admit three kinds of spirits: the natural spirits flowing through the veins, the vital spirits through the arteries , and the animal spirits through the nerves,... but we have found none of these spirits by dissection, neither in the veins, nerves, arteries nor other parts of living animals." Thenceforth the conceptual framework of spirits was in decline
Patricia Smith Churchland Brain-Wise pg. 256-257 An Introduction to Epistemology
Go ahead and describe their argument better. Don't just quote huge sections of interviews with them. What is their central thesis?
It is as I've said it is, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also points out the huge conceptual gap between quantum events and conscious events.
Because Artistotle believed one thing did not dictate what everyone else would philosophically believe till the end of time. That's the beauty of philosophy. We're entitled to freely think.
When you sneak around with cheap shots, straw men and misattribution, rather than intelligently ask questions or challenge specific points, yes, you remain safe from acknowledging your own misconceptions. And still you paint yourself into an intellectually false corner that is about your brain programming, rather than about understanding.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
This is what you are doing Angelica.
I have tried to debate the theories, I've gone all over looking for the central point. It turns out there isn't one, just a long stretching speculation between two completely separate areas of science. I've even talked about Penrose and Hammeroff's ideas and other theories of quantum consciousness. We've talked epistemology, or rather, I've talked epistemology. You haven't said anything, except to attack me. Your only argument is that I'm not seeing it, whatever it is and you claim it's because of some perceptual block I have. That is a strawman if I ever heard one. You fancy yourself some kind of guru on consciousness, but it's apparent to me that you don't know a damn thing. The only reason I'm even spending the time on this is so that there is some objectivity on this board. Not to mention, this was a thread I created to get some idea of the logic leading up to a belief in spirits/souls. You provided your illogic and I dissected it and pointed out the problems with it. It's over. Unless you have something to add to the logic or some other method you want to espouse, then there is no point in discussing this further.
What the kfuc is the difference exactly?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Good luck with that one. I couldn't get an accurate definition of one, let alone the differences.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!