Controversies of the Mind

ClimberInOz wrote:

I guess we might find out eventually. If they can ever get Quantum computers up and running that would be some pretty conclusive evidence of quantum superposition.

Sure enough, but until then, it's chilllin' with the easter bunny.

ClimberInOz wrote:

An easter bunny in all possible states mind you...

Actaully maybe that is how santa does it- Superpositioning reindeer that take all possible trajectories simultaneously, allowing him to visit all houses whilst only in fact visiting one.

Just like how the earth is flat and infinite.

catefrances wrote:

don't forget the turtles.

all the way down.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Science is flexible and always expanding...evolving. It's not rigid and structured so that there is no room for alternate theories to be possible....that would be religion.

actually, science is a process of developing hypotheses and testing them. once a consensus is reached, it's no longer science, it's fact. like the world being round. like the 2004 being decided on iraq and the economy and not "moral" issues.

as far as human beings, we are all predisposed to religion, be it christianity, judaism, or liberalism, we all believe in something.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Science is flexible and always expanding...evolving. It's not rigid and structured so that there is no room for alternate theories to be possible....that would be religion.

Agreed. And as time goes by those theories that don't match our observations are either refined or abandoned.

I think we have moved away from the 'old' science of absolutes, and moved toward a science where probability is everything. A new golden rule for science might read:

There is no proof or disproof, there is only probability.

Sometimes we have different theories that have approximately equal probabilities of being true so we hold onto both of them until we get enough evidence to favour one over the other.

With your feet on the air and your head on the ground
Try this trick and spin it, yeah
Your head will collapse if there's nothing in it
And you'll ask yourself
Where is my mind? Where is my mind? Where is my mind?

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, but I personally enjoy keeping my sanity. I won't walk the road to madness.

Is this not hypocritical of you? Why are you willing to put people down for not wanting to get into "hard science" but you are just as unwilling to get into spirituality? It's exactly the same thing.

It appears as though your fear to feel anything real denies you the ability to "go there" as it might disturb the perfect little world you've created for yourself based on scientific "fact."

Just becuase you think you can turn your spirituality on and off does not mean that's the truth and how it is for everyone. The beauty of spirituality is that you never know when it's going to hit you. Watching a sunrise. Holding a newborn baby. Going to a Pearl Jam concert. It's those moments when I start to cry because I'm so overwhelmed with emotion. It's not something I can turn off or would even want to. It's what makes me life worth living. And that is nothing that my brain has any control over.

You should open yourself up a little and start to feel things rather than read about them and take them as gold.

Just relax a bit.

Edit** And in case you want to argue that I'm some crazy hippy who doesn't get into hard science, that's not true. I've studied it for more than "months." More like years when I was an Honors Philosophy and Religion major in university with my special interest being Philosophy of the Mind. Most important thing I learned: Although there are so many theories out there that can come off as fact, only use it as it pertains to me. Use it all in MY world to MY advantage. Don't push it on anyone else. That's why Philosophy was so interesting to me, because it helped ME with MY mind and leads to interesting conversations, not arguments. **

ClimberInOz wrote:

I feel like I can have all of those emotions and not consider myself spiritual. Or perhaps it is all in the definition. I often wonder what people mean when they say spiritual.

Because if it things like being in awe of the natural world, or absolutely having my socks knocked off by this remarkable state we call existence, then I am already there. However, if it is a higher state of awareness or a metaphysical existence then you will have to count me out.

I actually feel like my atheism adds to my appreciation of life. Because I am convinved that in all probability my existence ceases in all forms upon my death. What better motivation could there be to live the greatest possible life that I can?

Keep in mind that we naturally go in and out of "lower" and "higher" states of awareness/consciousness throughout the day. A minority of the population regularly dwells in a realm of theory. A large majority of the members of the moving train are such individuals. This is different than the majority of people who are predominantly focussed on what is physically before them (70% of the population). The more theoretical types see what is before them and focus on what is invisible--possibilities, potentials and theories. Again, keep in mind these are natural preferences and we all move around in our states of awareness. For example, I'm so theoretical I often overlook what's before my eyes. However before when I was vacuuming, I was focussed on a level of awareness that is more "normal" or usual by the average person's standard. We naturally make such consciousness transitions without awareness. There are much less "normal" states of awareness that individuals can access under unusual circumstances, or we may come to develop an ability to regularly access such levels.

Of those who possess a more theoretical nature (30% of the population) they split into two categories: those who rely predominantly on logic for the decision making process, who become the innovators of our impersonal systems--hard sciences, technology, etc; and those who rely on emotions for the decision making process--these individuals become the innovators of our personal systems--humanities, philosophy, religion, etc. Our theoretical types tend to prefer one or the other for their world-view. Case in point: Ahnimus and myself show the contrast between the two styles. Is one or the other "better"? It depends on your preference.

In the concept of self-actualisation, "peak experiences" is a main characteristic. Such experiences are described as: "Feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of ecstasy and wonder and awe, the loss of placement in time and space with, finally, the conviction that something extremely important and valuable had happened, so that the subject was to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences." (Abraham Maslow, who developed the well-respected theory of self-actualisation) http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm

It is understood that many famous, inventive front-runners through time have experienced these experiences, and have claimed these experiences empowered them, aligning them with a life-purpose ( Abraham Lincoln (in his last years), Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Albert
Einstein, etc.) . These people are known to have resolved their inner conflicts to a degree that they are at-one with themselves and therefore more potent and realistic than the other 98% of the population.

Ahnimus, I think the reason you draw a lot of flak, is because of your mode of presentation. If you would talk about the science, point to the research, and give reasons why these experiments data are interesting and what they imply, all the time having an open mind about it, although clearly favouring one theory over another, I dont think as many would get so riled up at you. But you instead state "fact" as you see it, and refuse to acknowledge any other perspective other than as ignorant, uninformed and leading to madness and make-belief. You call yourself a truth-seeker, but evrything you say point towards you being a truth-owner. Which is ironic considering your disregard for religious people for the exact same thing. Owning truth without testing it, opening up for other perspectives or ever being willing to change it.

Here is my take on it. I believe you and your scientists working within that field, and that they have come up with a theory to explain findings. At the same time, it would appear clear that the scientific community in no way has any consensus on the theme, even if they have found results supporting their interpretation and use of theory and they are optimistic that they are on the right track. And you may post as many seminar movies and articles as you like proving your point, but htere is still the issue of whether there really are no competing theories that also could explain findings.

And most importantly, any theory of mind and consciousness that doesn't acknowledge people's experiences as anything save delusions and misinterpretations when it comes to the realm of the spiritual and religious, is gonna be incomplete. I'm not saying that we should heed religion over science or anything like that, but if one does not acknowledge that there has to be something (this something is very much up for debate, and maybe not about any particular religion or dogma really) that millions upon millions are experiencing, then one is ignoring an integral part of reality. It is a subject hard to research and find scientific testable data on. I'm not arguing that. But just because something is hard to prove or find, does not mean that it can be easily dismissed.

Neurologists looking for reactions in the brain leading to emotions moods and so on, will certainly find them. And if they measure that theory, by measuring these reactions, well of course they will find what they think, because that's what they are looking for. But even if they can accurately describe what goes on in the brain, is not the same as really knowing what is going on. Imagine observing an alien spacecraft up close. You can observe it, write down how it looks, observe electrical impulses moving around it's perimeter and so on, and after that try to make a theory of how it works, based only on the superficial data. That's not gonna be easy, because it may well be that the most key components that really makes it tick, is not observable from the outside.

I am not debunking all of neurology here, I am just saying that what they basically are doing is watching closely and filing relations within the brain. Centres which there appears to be going traffic between, and trying to link that to actions and so forth. So they find that consciousness etc is located in the frontal lobe. Then what? They then build theory upon theory to make a model that fits data and makes sense to them. They then have a theory. But the building blocks of other theories can be combined differently, and may each in itself be debatable, seriously limiting the use of the result. Think 99% (if we give each theory such a probability of correctness) multiplied several times over, the overall probability will drop pretty quickly.

What I'm saying really, is that science is well and good because of it's methodicalness, testing thins over and over. But science has no monopoly of truth, nor a monopoly on interpretation of its data, and even if many scientists agree about something, doesnt make it right in the end, as several instances in history has shown. A scientist must then have an open mind, and a heavy dose of scepticism towards his/her own activities. Science does provide us regularly more correct results than our own hunches and guesses. That I grant them. But being more accurate and tested does not mean 100% right. We dont know what percentage it is true. Which makes me sceptical towards complete theories of everything or at least large subjects.

Anyway. If you want to get across and perhaps convince people of your position, some humility might work, and not being so quick to slap crap or garbage at something just because you dont use to or like thinking about them. People aren't crazy for believing that there is something else other than a deterministic, scientized, atheistic existence out there. Acknowledging subjective truths is not insanity. And science IS fallible.

Peace
Dan

angelica wrote:

Very nice!

i'm afraid I missed the beauty of the post..can anyone dumb it down and highlight the point?