If something can't be proven....
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
17 Apr 2014, 8:07 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
Its called "Russell's Teapot".
Betrand Russell said "I could assert that there is a teapot careening through space between Mars and Jupiter, and the fact that noboby can disprove its existence does not prove that the teapot exists!"
But Russell's teapot got knocked over by Shrodinger's Cat one day, and it made such a clatter that it caused Occam to cut himself with his razor!
Betrand Russell said "I could assert that there is a teapot careening through space between Mars and Jupiter, and the fact that noboby can disprove its existence does not prove that the teapot exists!"
But Russell's teapot got knocked over by Shrodinger's Cat one day, and it made such a clatter that it caused Occam to cut himself with his razor!
Except of course Schrodinger was satirising the Copenhagen Model, and the observation of russell's t pot would not manifestly alter its existence or its position. Quantum mechanics relates to the very small, not tpots. There is no unified theory, no theory of everything and you seem to be suggesting that there is.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
17 Apr 2014, 8:38 pm
DentArthurDent wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Its called "Russell's Teapot".
Betrand Russell said "I could assert that there is a teapot careening through space between Mars and Jupiter, and the fact that noboby can disprove its existence does not prove that the teapot exists!"
But Russell's teapot got knocked over by Shrodinger's Cat one day, and it made such a clatter that it caused Occam to cut himself with his razor!
Betrand Russell said "I could assert that there is a teapot careening through space between Mars and Jupiter, and the fact that noboby can disprove its existence does not prove that the teapot exists!"
But Russell's teapot got knocked over by Shrodinger's Cat one day, and it made such a clatter that it caused Occam to cut himself with his razor!
Except of course Schrodinger was satirising the Copenhagen Model, and the observation of russell's t pot would not manifestly alter its existence or its position. Quantum mechanics relates to the very small, not tpots. There is no unified theory, no theory of everything and you seem to be suggesting that there is.
Huh?
17 Apr 2014, 8:44 pm
Well..let's put it this way..
before..WHEN I lost my soul..and it turned to darkness..no one noticed me in a room..
when i regained my soul..
a person can walk in a room..before they see me..
and say...
there is a beautiful feeling of light in this room...
Whatever it is..
whatever SYMBOL one uses to describe this force that is well beyond our physicality..
It is real..
and NOW i AM more than enough FOR proof of it...
IN REAL LIFE...
NOW...
AND NAH..THIS CERTAINLY IS NOT THE ONLY ACCOUNT OF THIS
TRUE POWER OF WHAT CAN BE DESCRIBED AS THE POSITIVE LIGHT
AND ENERGY OF CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS..
AS DESCRIBED IN THE CODED POETRY OF THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS..
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm
HEAVEN IS NOW..AND I AM IN IT NOW..
AND SOME WHO CROSS MY PATH IN REAL LIFE..
SOME BEFORE THEY SEE ME..
FEEL IT..
IN THEIR SOUL TOO....
BUT YES..
ONLY THE ONES WHO ARE BORN AGAIN..LITERALLY WITH THIS SOUL...
OF LIGHT
that requires NO STRUCTURED RELIGION TO GAIN..
THAT CAN TURN TO DARK.. AS WELL.. AGAIN... can feel it with a soul....OF LIGHTLOVE...
DO YA DOUBT THE POWER OF ATOMIC ENERGY..
WELL IT IS WHAT WE ARE
AT
CORE...
No one would ever believe IN an A-Bomb before that power was HARNESSED AND measured either..and used as such..
Humans have much greater potential in power and energy influence...
Than most people think they do..
walking in Super Wal-mart..
and sadly
here too...
The spirit AND SOUL is within...
the illusion is
words....THAT DO NOT MEASURE SOUL....
And the saddest thing of all for those who live dead in soul....
It's not likeLY they could feel this...
Even in real life...
Nothing but experience will prove a soul....
for one who experiences a soul...
Sadly it seems there are humans without souls...
And yes...i know this all to well..from personal REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE...
WITHOUT A SOUL..FOR OVER 5 YEARS....
EMOTION IS ONLY AN ENTRY POINT INTO SOUL...
THIS POWERFUL LIGHT IS BEYOND ANY EMOTION..
THAT CAN BE DESCRIBED IN WORDS...
OTHER THAN
LIGHT....
FAR BEYOND THE PHYSICAL HOUSING OF THE BRAIN..
ALONE..
UNLESS THE BRAIN HAS WINGS..2...IN METAPHOR..OF course..
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
18 Apr 2014, 12:38 am
naturalplastic wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Its called "Russell's Teapot".
Betrand Russell said "I could assert that there is a teapot careening through space between Mars and Jupiter, and the fact that noboby can disprove its existence does not prove that the teapot exists!"
But Russell's teapot got knocked over by Schrodinger's Cat one day, and it made such a clatter that it caused Occam to cut himself with his razor!
Betrand Russell said "I could assert that there is a teapot careening through space between Mars and Jupiter, and the fact that noboby can disprove its existence does not prove that the teapot exists!"
But Russell's teapot got knocked over by Schrodinger's Cat one day, and it made such a clatter that it caused Occam to cut himself with his razor!
Except of course Schrodinger was satirising the Copenhagen Model, and the observation of Russell's t pot would not manifestly alter its existence or its position. Quantum mechanics relates to the very small, not t-pots. There is no unified theory, no theory of everything and you seem to be suggesting that there is.
Huh?
Well I am assuming that your post was suggesting that the Quantum Mechanics concepts of infinite histories and probability amplitude somehow falsify Russell's T Pot analogy and the idea that the solution with the least assumptions is the best. From my very, very sparse understanding of Quantum Mechanics it has little effect on the macro world e.g cats and T-pots, but is concerned with the micro e.g particles and waves.
Schrodinger's thought experiment was a satirical take on the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, so I fail to see how it knocks over Russel's T-Pot, nor how it falsifies Occam. Maybe I am missing something?
As to the OP it all depends on evidence, like AG said, if you are told of a pizza eating unicorn and tthe tale had no substantiating evidence, the likelihood of it existing would be remote in the extreme. On the other hand we have never seen Quark's and other particles but we know they must almost certainly exist, because we have evidence of them. The Higgs Bosun is a nice contemporary example, the evidence suggested its existence (indeed it was essential for the Standard Model to work) but it was not discovered until 2012 nearly 50 years after it was postulated.
Suggesting that because you have faith in something it therefore must exist is ridiculous unless there is some supporting evidence
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
DentArthurDent
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia
18 Apr 2014, 6:45 am
GGPViper wrote:
Who is this aimed at?
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
18 Apr 2014, 6:45 am
TallyMan wrote:
UnLoser wrote:
The fact that the physical activity in our brains somehow results in consciousness, our subjective experiences, is pretty surprising and amazing. It's enough to make me wonder if there really is something more going on behind the scenes. As much as some scientists like to pretend otherwise, consciousness can never be explained by science and reason alone. No matter how well they understand the mechanisms of the brain, there will always be that lingering question of why we feel, rather than being mindless zombies that do as we are programmed but feel nothing.
I agree with you about consciousness. However, consciousness is actually an emergent property based on the neural activity within the brain. Consciousness is more than the sum of the neural activity. However, this does not mean it is some mysterious "soul". This consciousness is entirely based/reliant upon the underlying neural activity. When the neural activity ceases so does consciousness. This consciousness can be manipulated by physical and chemical means by manipulating the neuronal activity... as anyone who has taken psychedelic drugs would attest. So while consciousness is a remarkable "thing" it is not entirely mysterious.
I don't think anything mysterious is going on, I think that all phenomenon are entirely natural, to be clear.
You seem to be espousing a reductionist, locally constrained materialistic monism theory of mind in which electrochemical reactions moving through the brain over time are the only significant contributors to the emergence of consciousness.
It seems like anything that was an emergent property of locally constrained events such as electrochemical reactions moving through the brain over time would only be able to jerk, disjointedly, from one stable state and thus perception/thought to another as the reactions temporarily stabilized then destabilized the emergent property over & over & over as time passed.
What I would like to know is how you think electrochemical reactions taking place over areas of the brain over periods of time could possibly produce emergent phenomenon which are smooth, constant, and wholistic seeming, consicousness for example, if the phenomenon in question are only the result of those locally constrained electrochemical reactions moving through the brain over time?
I really want an answer, because to me it seems like the events & constraints on the nature of the mind you postulate aren't sufficient to produce what can be observed about it.
18 Apr 2014, 8:51 am
Bodyles wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
UnLoser wrote:
The fact that the physical activity in our brains somehow results in consciousness, our subjective experiences, is pretty surprising and amazing. It's enough to make me wonder if there really is something more going on behind the scenes. As much as some scientists like to pretend otherwise, consciousness can never be explained by science and reason alone. No matter how well they understand the mechanisms of the brain, there will always be that lingering question of why we feel, rather than being mindless zombies that do as we are programmed but feel nothing.
I agree with you about consciousness. However, consciousness is actually an emergent property based on the neural activity within the brain. Consciousness is more than the sum of the neural activity. However, this does not mean it is some mysterious "soul". This consciousness is entirely based/reliant upon the underlying neural activity. When the neural activity ceases so does consciousness. This consciousness can be manipulated by physical and chemical means by manipulating the neuronal activity... as anyone who has taken psychedelic drugs would attest. So while consciousness is a remarkable "thing" it is not entirely mysterious.
I don't think anything mysterious is going on, I think that all phenomenon are entirely natural, to be clear.
You seem to be espousing a reductionist, locally constrained materialistic monism theory of mind in which electrochemical reactions moving through the brain over time are the only significant contributors to the emergence of consciousness.
It seems like anything that was an emergent property of locally constrained events such as electrochemical reactions moving through the brain over time would only be able to jerk, disjointedly, from one stable state and thus perception/thought to another as the reactions temporarily stabilized then destabilized the emergent property over & over & over as time passed.
What I would like to know is how you think electrochemical reactions taking place over areas of the brain over periods of time could possibly produce emergent phenomenon which are smooth, constant, and wholistic seeming, consicousness for example, if the phenomenon in question are only the result of those locally constrained electrochemical reactions moving through the brain over time?
I really want an answer, because to me it seems like the events & constraints on the nature of the mind you postulate aren't sufficient to produce what can be observed about it.
I would argue that the emergent phenomena "consciousness" is not smooth, constant or wholistic. Speaking from a purely subjective point of view; my thoughts and emotions come and go continuously as does the sense of "I" or "me" which also appears to be a construct of the brain. It appears that consciousness never appears without a content i.e. consciousness of "something". This would tie up with the ongoing changing neural activity of the brain. Similarly when we are in deep sleep the neural activity that generates consciousness is absent and there is no awareness of anything including the passing of time.
I read a neuroscience article recently (sorry can't remember the link) that indicated that the subjective experience of consciousness arises when certain neurons fire in a rhythmic fashion in a momentarily sustained feedback loop. i.e. the output of our neural network directly feeds the input in a temporary loop... a form of self sensing.
_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.
18 Apr 2014, 12:57 pm
TallyMan wrote:
Bodyles wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
UnLoser wrote:
The fact that the physical activity in our brains somehow results in consciousness, our subjective experiences, is pretty surprising and amazing. It's enough to make me wonder if there really is something more going on behind the scenes. As much as some scientists like to pretend otherwise, consciousness can never be explained by science and reason alone. No matter how well they understand the mechanisms of the brain, there will always be that lingering question of why we feel, rather than being mindless zombies that do as we are programmed but feel nothing.
I agree with you about consciousness. However, consciousness is actually an emergent property based on the neural activity within the brain. Consciousness is more than the sum of the neural activity. However, this does not mean it is some mysterious "soul". This consciousness is entirely based/reliant upon the underlying neural activity. When the neural activity ceases so does consciousness. This consciousness can be manipulated by physical and chemical means by manipulating the neuronal activity... as anyone who has taken psychedelic drugs would attest. So while consciousness is a remarkable "thing" it is not entirely mysterious.
I don't think anything mysterious is going on, I think that all phenomenon are entirely natural, to be clear.
You seem to be espousing a reductionist, locally constrained materialistic monism theory of mind in which electrochemical reactions moving through the brain over time are the only significant contributors to the emergence of consciousness.
It seems like anything that was an emergent property of locally constrained events such as electrochemical reactions moving through the brain over time would only be able to jerk, disjointedly, from one stable state and thus perception/thought to another as the reactions temporarily stabilized then destabilized the emergent property over & over & over as time passed.
What I would like to know is how you think electrochemical reactions taking place over areas of the brain over periods of time could possibly produce emergent phenomenon which are smooth, constant, and wholistic seeming, consicousness for example, if the phenomenon in question are only the result of those locally constrained electrochemical reactions moving through the brain over time?
I really want an answer, because to me it seems like the events & constraints on the nature of the mind you postulate aren't sufficient to produce what can be observed about it.
I would argue that the emergent phenomena "consciousness" is not smooth, constant or wholistic. Speaking from a purely subjective point of view; my thoughts and emotions come and go continuously as does the sense of "I" or "me" which also appears to be a construct of the brain. It appears that consciousness never appears without a content i.e. consciousness of "something". This would tie up with the ongoing changing neural activity of the brain. Similarly when we are in deep sleep the neural activity that generates consciousness is absent and there is no awareness of anything including the passing of time.
I read a neuroscience article recently (sorry can't remember the link) that indicated that the subjective experience of consciousness arises when certain neurons fire in a rhythmic fashion in a momentarily sustained feedback loop. i.e. the output of our neural network directly feeds the input in a temporary loop... a form of self sensing.
WELL..TALLYMAN..THAT IS QUITE INTERESTING..as my mind worked in this similar CHAOTIC way YOU DESCRIBE..before i experienced TRUE AWAKENING..THE BALANCE OF FULL BRAIN..NOT EXISTENCE IN HALF A BRAIN [/METAPHOR please understand]
THERE IS NEVER A RANDOM THOUGHT IN MY MIND ANYMORE..
I
AM
IN
COMPLETE
CONTROL..
FREE WILL DUDE IS WHAT IS...
Little i by the way...
no ego what so ever..
i create IT
IT
is
NOT
me
AT
ALL
i
am
ALL
2
now and completely mindful IN AWARENESS OF IT ALL WAYS...
NOW..
And it happened almost overnight..
No DOCTOR I HAVE CAN EXPLAIN..IT!
THEY LITERALLY CALL IT A MIRACLE...!
NOT A BIOCHEMICAL REACTION..THAT ANY SCIENCE OR SCIENTISTS MEASURES
AS SUCH!
THAT ANY SCIENCE OR SCIENTIST CAN EXPLAIN...IN ANY LANGUAGED WORDS...
EXCEPT FOR THE TEACHINGS FOUND IN THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS..
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm
for those individuals who exist...
LIKE THIS..
WHO HAVE THE COMPLETE MIND OF EYE IN BEING TO DISCERN IT!
REAL AND COMPLETELY NATURAL..
IN THE REAL FULLEST LIFE!
THAT IS REAL
NATURAL
MIRACLE
AND MAGICK
EVERY NOW...!
And nah..it IS much more than the nothingness of a silly little ZEN meditation session..
It is CONSTANT EXPLOSION OF LIGHT..IN PERFECT PEACE..AND ATOMIC CREATION!
IN MOVEMENT
AND STILL.....
YAH..THAT MOVING MOUNTAINS STUFF..!
IN REAL LIFE AS METAPHOR IN THE WORDS OF JESUS AND MUHAMMAD!
AND I PROVE it every day of everynow2..in my blogs for those2..who have eyes to see...
and yes..they tell me so...
And hell 'know' not 'hear'..this ain't the place for any discernment as far as i see ..so far...except
for a few exceptions..here and tHere...
But i continue to try my hardest to spark..
that light
in some one
any one..
makes all the effort worthwhile..
as i live empathy..i don't merely talk about it....or FORGET ABOUT IT....
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
18 Apr 2014, 1:48 pm
babybird wrote:
does it mean it doesn't exist?
The reason I ask is that I was reading an article about the soul and although science cannot prove that there is such a thing as the soul, some scientists do still believe that it exists.
When I find the article I might post it, but I'm a bit busy now.
Thanks.
The reason I ask is that I was reading an article about the soul and although science cannot prove that there is such a thing as the soul, some scientists do still believe that it exists.
When I find the article I might post it, but I'm a bit busy now.
Thanks.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
However, if someone asserts X exists the burden of proof is on him, not the person who doubts that X exists.
ruveyn
23 Apr 2014, 3:59 am
Bodyles wrote:
What I would like to know is how you think electrochemical reactions taking place over areas of the brain over periods of time could possibly produce emergent phenomenon which are smooth, constant, and wholistic seeming, consicousness for example, if the phenomenon in question are only the result of those locally constrained electrochemical reactions moving through the brain over time?
It is smooth, coherent simply because you don't directly experience* any gap.
* It is possible to indirectly conclude such gaps exist by experiments.
