Controversies of the Mind

Ahnimus · February 2007

angelica wrote:

I'll get into the science of consciousness, when you get into the practice of subjective consciousness. The ways to spiritual awareness/consciousness have been mapped and can be followed by anyone.

When you've been to Rome you won't really care if people tell you it's impossible and that it does not exist. You've cleverly disguised your own bias from yourself. You know the consciousness drill ahnimus: preconception.

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

angelica · February 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

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

See post #41. See: unreason. And how it's based on lack of insight.

Ahnimus · February 2007

Angelica. Intuition is processed by the frontal insular cortex. That's a fact.

There is still nothing metaphysical about it. It's just a different algorithm.

angelica · February 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica. Intuition is processed by the frontal insular cortex. That's a fact.

There is still nothing metaphysical about it. It's just a different algorithm.

Do you really think that what you know compares to the truths that exist? Do you know the whole truth, Ahnimus? You'd better with your unwillingness to keep an open mind.

angelica · February 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica. Intuition is processed by the frontal insular cortex. That's a fact.

There is still nothing metaphysical about it. It's just a different algorithm.

Oh, and did you read the post 41, and the implications about insight? It doesn't sound like it if you are still talking about the brain.

"it's the insight that does it, you see, the insight is not you, right? The insight being supreme intelligence is able to rearrange the very structural matter of the brain which underlies thought so as to remove that message which is causing the confusion, leaving the necessary information and leaving the brain open to perceive reality in a different way."

Ahnimus · February 2007

angelica wrote:

Do you really think that what you know compares to the truths that exist? Do you know the whole truth, Ahnimus? You'd better with your unwillingness to keep an open mind.

Umm, my viewpoints have changed drastically several times in the last few years. When was the last time your viewpoint changed? I've never whitnessed it.

I'm not fighting for some doctrine or personal experience. This is the facts. I'm fighting for truth, if truth appears in some other form, then fine. But I'm just battling static.

Ahnimus · February 2007

angelica wrote:

Oh, and did you read the post 41, and the implications about insight? It doesn't sound like it if you are still talking about the brain.

"it's the insight that does it, you see, the insight is not you, right? The insight being supreme intelligence is able to rearrange the very structural matter of the brain which underlies thought so as to remove that message which is causing the confusion, leaving the necessary information and leaving the brain open to perceive reality in a different way."

You totally misinterpret that statement.

angelica · February 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

You totally misinterpret that statement.

How do you know how I interpret it?

How do you read it?

Ahnimus · February 2007

angelica wrote:

How do you know how I interpret it?

How do you read it?

The brain disregards past information to allow for perceiving new information clearly.

It's just spiced up because of the preconception of the author.

ClimberInOz · February 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I have an explanation. Firstly, we know that "nothing" is not nothing. Even where no matter exists, dark matter may exist. But we know air is made up of Hyrdogen and Oxygen atoms. So the electrons or photons may create a rift in this or the ether to create an interference. Makes a lot more sense than superposition to me.

But not to the majority of the world's experts on quatum mechanics, or they would be proposing that, rather than superposition, as an explanation for single photon interference patters.

However I will say that I by no means view superposition as proven, just that it is currently the best theory to explain a fascinating paradox. It may well be replaced by a better theory in a few years time, or alternatively new evidence may well be found to support it. I would not be overly surprised either way.

angelica · February 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

The brain disregards past information to allow for perceiving new information clearly.

It's just spiced up because of the preconception of the author.

Oh, so now the author is spicing up brain info?

How about this:

"Weber: All right. What it would be in touch with, you imply is beyond the nonmanifest, is the source of the nonmanifest. Are you implying that that's the domain of, shall we call it "the sacred"?

Bohm: Well, it has been called the sacred. As we know "holy" is based on the word "whole", it could be called whole, or wholeness.

This "author" was a brilliant physicist, who with help of Karl Pribrim, front running brain/mind specialist developed a holistic theory of the universe. The theory contained the idea of a manifest universe, that sprung from the unmanifest universe--on the physical level. And the idea was that both sprung from a "Source". He's not just supporting your brain stuff Ahnimus--he's talking beyond the physical aspects of life.

Ahnimus · February 2007

angelica wrote:

Oh, so now the author is spicing up brain info?

How about this:

"Weber: All right. What it would be in touch with, you imply is beyond the nonmanifest, is the source of the nonmanifest. Are you implying that that's the domain of, shall we call it "the sacred"?

Bohm: Well, it has been called the sacred. As we know "holy" is based on the word "whole", it could be called whole, or wholeness.

This "author" was a brilliant physicist, who with help of Karl Pribrim, front running brain/mind specialist developed a holistic theory of the universe. The theory contained the idea of a manifest universe, that sprung from the unmanifest universe--on the physical level. And the idea was that both sprung from a "Source". He's not just supporting your brain stuff Ahnimus--he's talking beyond the physical aspects of life.

It's not based on anything but speculation. It's garbage science.

Ahnimus · February 2007

ClimberInOz wrote:

But not to the majority of the world's experts on quatum mechanics, or they would be proposing that, rather than superposition, as an explanation for single photon interference patters.

However I will say that I by no means view superposition as proven, just that it is currently the best theory to explain a fascinating paradox. It may well be replaced by a better theory in a few years time, or alternatively new evidence may well be found to support it. I would not be overly surprised either way.

This is just a short clipping from wikipedia

wikipedia wrote:

Since the beginnings of science, people have attempted to solve the problem of free will using scientific methods. Early scientific thought often pictured the universe as deterministic,[45] and some thinkers believed that it was simply a matter of gathering sufficient information to be able to predict future events with perfect accuracy. This vision entailed that free will must be an illusion.

Modern science, on the other hand, is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic theories.[46] The possibility that the universe at the macroscopic level may be governed by indeterministic laws, as it is at the quantum level, has revived interest in free will among physicists. Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. However, if an action is taken due to quantum randomness, this in itself, means that free will is still absent, as such action can not be controllable by someone claimed to posses such free will. Some scientific determinists, following Albert Einstein, believe in so-called "hidden variable theories" that entail that beneath the probabilities of quantum mechanics there are fixed variables (see the EPR paradox).[47] These theories were cast into doubt by the discovery of Bell's Inequality.[47] Robert Kane has capitalized on the success of quantum mechanics and chaos theory in order to defend incompatibilist freedom in his The Significance of Free Will and other writing.[48]

I can assure beyond doubt that "most physicists" don't my the quantum indetermination garbage, and even if they do, it still doesn't prove we have any super intelligence, or super control over those mechanisms. They exist at a level of reality of which we do not exist. They are frivilous arguments. Garbage.

angelica · February 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

It's not based on anything but speculation. It's garbage science.

This is why you and I cannot relate on these subjects. I'm not interested in dogmatic lay-science. I am interested in understanding reality.

Ahnimus · February 2007

angelica wrote:

This is why you and I cannot relate on these subjects. I'm not interested in dogmatic lay-science. I am interested in understanding reality.

Yea me too, but I'm not interested in crazy theories about super-intelligence existing as some ethereal force in the universe that interferes with our normal brain activity. It's bullshit.

angelica · February 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea me too, but I'm not interested in crazy theories about super-intelligence existing as some ethereal force in the universe that interferes with our normal brain activity. It's bullshit.

Keep that mind shut to possibilities you cannot understand.

Ahnimus · February 2007

angelica wrote:

Keep that mind shut to possibilities you cannot understand.

I'm just not a megalomaniac that needs metaphysical explanations for reality. I like versions of reality that are based on real science and not just speculation. If science proves that God has an uplink to our brains and is the source of intuition, then I'll probably still be skeptical, but I'll be more likely to believe it. However, science doesn't prove that, some megalomaniacs try to say it does, but it just doesn't. It's garbage. Rubbish.

ClimberInOz · February 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

This is just a short clipping from wikipedia

I can assure beyond doubt that "most physicists" don't my the quantum indetermination garbage, and even if they do, it still doesn't prove we have any super intelligence, or super control over those mechanisms. They exist at a level of reality of which we do not exist. They are frivilous arguments. Garbage.

I think you misunderstand a few of my posts.I am not arguing for or against free will. Personally I am inclined to believe free will is an illusion, but still am a long way from deciding on that. I included the summary of quantum consciousness for people's interest, not because I believe it to be a reflection of reality.

I would be interested in where you get your information from about what physicists believe. I am yet to read a published rejection of the uncertainty principle and all that it entails- but would be very interested if you have one.

As for super intelligence, I have no idea where you figured I believe in any super intelligence or super control mechanisms.

I am merely suggesting that superposition is a legitimate scientific theory, and the best current explanation for the single photon interference pattern. How people choose to use superposition (arguing for quantum consciousness etc.), well, I will judge every idea on its merits.

Ahnimus · February 2007

ClimberInOz wrote:

I think you misunderstand a few of my posts.I am not arguing for or against free will. Personally I am inclined to believe free will is an illusion, but still am a long way from deciding on that. I included the summary of quantum consciousness for people's interest, not because I believe it to be a reflection of reality.

I would be interested in where you get your information from about what physicists believe. I am yet to read a published rejection of the uncertainty principle and all that it entails- but would be very interested if you have one.

As for super intelligence, I have no idea where you figured I believe in any super intelligence or super control mechanisms.

I am merely suggesting that superposition is a legitimate scientific theory, and the best current explanation for the single photon interference pattern. How people choose to use superposition (arguing for quantum consciousness etc.), well, I will judge every idea on its merits.

Well, anyway, superposition hinges on the uncertainty principle and our inability to detect what the particles are actually doing. Superpositioning is merely a stab in the dark at what is going on in the quantum world. Know what uncertainty is? The inability to perfectly measure things, in the case of quantum mechanics, we can't hardly measure it at all. So, I don't see superpositioning as being a valid argument. It's just a shoddy theory IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

ClimberInOz · February 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, anyway, superposition hinges on the uncertainty principle and our inability to detect what the particles are actually doing. Superpositioning is merely a stab in the dark at what is going on in the quantum world. Know what uncertainty is? The inability to perfectly measure things, in the case of quantum mechanics, we can't hardly measure it at all. So, I don't see superpositioning as being a valid argument. It's just a shoddy theory IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

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.

Controversies of the Mind

Comments

Categories