Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[stevevw]

And you can't ask those questions if you're dead... that's what I mean by self-explanatory. The Anthropic principle is just as self-explanatory. If you can't see that then I guess that reasoning isn't the right tool for me to be using. Sorry... my bad.

Your not seeing the forrest through the trees. The Anthropic principle is based on logic only. So yes its explanatory as logic but logic is only part of the explanation in the context of the entire forest.

"the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."[12] The "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently".[13

How bio-friendly is the universe

The oft-repeated claim that life is written into the laws of nature are examined and criticized. Arguments are given in favour of life spreading between near-neighbour planets in rocky impact ejecta (transpermia), but against panspermia, leading to the conclusion that if life is indeed found to...

arxiv.org

This is a reasonable question. By 'coherent' I mean that it's self-consistent... in that it has a pattern of behavior that's predictable, not random or chaotic. And by 'self-perpetuating' I mean that that pattern will by its very nature lead to a continuation of the pattern. I.E 'A' will lead to 'B' will lead to 'C' and so on, until for some reason the pattern ceases being self-consistent, at which point it stops being self-perpetuating and reverts back to chaos again.

I don't understand how this refutes consciousness or Mind being fundemental. What if its consciousness that gives the apparent order. That 0.0001% of order out of chaos. What we see in objective reality is just how consciousness humans are designed to see the world, obviously for practical reasons in that we have to navigate it. But beyond this the underlying makeup is a world of superpositions, of potentialities, or wavy energy that has no fixed position until we observe or measure it.

This too is perfectly reasonable. So the question that we need to ask ourselves is... if a pattern is stable enough, and self-consistent enough, to lead to something such as microbes, will it inevitably lead to conscious beings such as ourselves? Now I admit that I have no way of knowing the answer to this question. But then again the Anthropic principle guarantees that I'll never be in one of those realities, so in a very real sense the question is moot.

My how logic can just wipe out important questions. Luckily logic is not the be all and end all of how we can understand the world and reality.

The common belief is that life is possible in all forms in the universe depending on the environment. Some environments will only produce certain life and there is no guarentee that the environment will change to accommodate conscious human life. Thats the reality we have to deal with.

The Anthropic principle breaks down because it cannot explain the different environments that are conducive for intelligent conscious life or other forms of life. Not that there is life or no life but the steps that get us here in the first place.

Why do you make this assumption? Why assume that quantum chaos is 'something' in need of a cause, any more than God is 'something' in need of a cause, or a mind is 'something' in need of a cause? However in the case of the mind it actually does need a cause. (More on that later)

Because the science method (physical closure principle) demands a physical cause. Everything that happens has a cause. In that sense I think at some point a physical cause even quantum voids are something with a cause. To assume they always existed appeals to some unscientific idea that cannot be verified by science. So it stands to reason that some uncaused non physical aspect was always there more than assuming some physical aspect was always there.

Correct. I'm equating them, hence if you can claim that God, or consciousness don't need a cause, then by what logic do you assert that an underlying quantum chaos does? If that 'quantum chaos' is the source of time itself, then there's no such thing as 'before' it existed, hence a preceding cause is impossible. Whereas a mind would seem to require a preceding cause by default. (More on that... still later)

It still doesn't explain how quantum vacumn chaos came about which needs a cause as its something and not nothing containing energy. Where did that energy come from.

The "Egocentric predicament" is the epistemological dilemma in which one can never gain a perspective outside of one's own mind. It is unfortunately an indisputable fact.

Thats why many are turning to ideas like consciousness and mind because epistemically the only real measure of reality is consciousness and mind. All else is but a concept created by mind and beyond mind in that it rationalises our conscious experience away and replaces it with something outside that for which we have no direct evidence for.

Remember, I'm a solipsist. As such I accept that things exist, even if that existence is only in my mind. Unfortunately I can't think of any logical way in which that mind could create itself... i.e. be its own First cause, or not require a cause.

Unless mind or consciousness is fundemental, prevades everything, was there in the beginning and always. Then humans with a mind and consciousness is just a natural outcome. Mind is not restricted to minds inside heads.

Now I'll explain why the mind needs a cause.

The mind consists of a collection of information that it cannot exist without, because that information is the very essence of its existence.

Not if Mind is fundemental to everything. Then Mind and Information exists beyond heads. This is the basis for several scientific ideas and arguements.

So if it can't exist without it, then it can't have created it, because it can't logically be the cause of something that it can't exist without. Hence the mind requires a preceding cause to explain the existence of the information that characterizes it.

Not if Mind and consciousness is fundemental and has always been around and prevades everything including the physical bodies that Mind exists in. The physical body then becomes a facilitator of Mind and consciousness and not an epiphenomena of the physical brain.

 

[carloagal]

Il multiverso (almeno quello di cui parliamo normalmente) nasce dall'"inflazione eterna". In sostanza tutto si gonfia e le “piccole” bolle si fermano e diventano universi ordinari:


"Nel 1983, è stato dimostrato che l'inflazione potrebbe essere eterna, portando a un multiverso in cui lo spazio è suddiviso in bolle o macchie le cui proprietà differiscono da zona a zona abbracciando tutte le possibilità fisiche."

L’inflazione stessa ebbe origine dal tentativo di risolvere il problema dell’apparente inesistenza dei monopoli magnetici, sebbene si rivelò molto utile per chiarire alcuni aspetti della cosmologia.

There is no evidence that the non-material can make anything material from scratch. The always existing base material is no more or less conceptually problematic than the always existing non-material (unless the non-material requires the material, for example "ideas" requiring a thinker).


I'm not talking of something that began to exist, rather something that always existed. No "causal closure" is needed in such a case.

Nothing means nothing. No matter, no energy, no space, no mind, nothing.

Math without mathematicians is unknown.


Based on *what* rule? (And I wouldn't call it a "void", that implies emptiness, rather than some eternal material state.)

The "nothing comes from nothing" notion is really (and I'll rewrite the idiots Kalam argument here)

P: Any material object that comes into existence from other material had a material cause.

*THAT* is the thing we have abundant evidence of. The conclusion we can reach inductively.

If you have no beginning to time (cosmically) then the logical inference from this must be that something material has always existed. (I will avoid here the question of uncaused quantum mechanical events, but even in that case, some sort of thing existed.) You can posit that the always existent is some sort of non-material being with the capability to create material, but that is multiplying unknowns.


I said nothing about "mind" and this "Mind that creates the concepts of the physical" is irrelevant. It's also without demonstration.

The atoms exist without our minds and our concepts of the physical are just descriptions of what exist. We do no create the nuclear strong force or the semi-conductor band gap. We conceptualize these to understand the behavior of nuclei and semi-conductors, but they exist without us doing so.


Not for the mindless. Name one astronomical object with a mind.

You are too materialistic just like your brain. Mountainmike are try to saying thar faith are more prof than evolution. This proofs are The Eucharistic Miracles. On 1996 a host in Argentina turned into flesh and blood. It was studied by Doctor Ricardo Castanon Gomez, Frederick Zugibe and Robert Lawrence find that blood was human heart tissue was alive with white blood cells intact that survived in water for 3 years. Another miracles: Tixla in Messico on 2006 a host start to bleeding and turned into heart muscle tissue alive with white blood cells. Then the two eucharistic miracles in Poland, two host bleeding and appeared heart muscle tissue in agony. This debunked Darwin evolution. In fact evolution could be debunking if we can observed if a organism can be created supernaturally like in the eucaristic miracles.

 

[carloagal]

Could we please stop using this phrasing?

First "mainstream science" is just "science".

Second, please stop the conflation of "atheist" and "scientist".

There are several people in science who post semi-regularly on this section of CF that are declared Christians. (They probably out number us actual scientists who are atheists here as well.)

I know lots of scientists, for most I have no idea what there religion is or is not. That's normal since science is a secular activity and religion is irrelevant to it. Of the scientists whom I know something about their religious opinions, about a third are active believers, perhaps another third are nominal believers (from what I can see), and a third are non-believers. [In that middle group are those who've made some sort of statement reflecting a religious belief or practice, but for whom I can't tell how active they are. For all I know, most of them go to sunday mass each week.]

Your mind is materialistic not scientific. Mountainmike take god example how science and faith can work together. We have not clues how life started but I can prof that life was created. I have 5 eucharistic miracles phenomenon where human alive heart tissue were created supernaturally in a simple host that is the eucaristic that debunked Darwin evolution theory. The Eucharistic Miracles of Buenos Aires on 1996 studied by scientists like Ricardo Castanon Gomez, Frederick Zugibe and Robert Lawrence that confirmed a host turned into alive human heart tissue with white blood cells and again Eucaristic Miracle of Tixla in Mexico in 2006 and Sokolka and Legnica in Poland where a host turned into human muscle heart tissue in agony. All this 4 events of eucharistic phenomenon find that a complex organ like a human heart tissue was created by supernaturally that debunked evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are too materialistic just like your brain.

My brain is entirely material. Not sure how it could be "too materialistic". That makes no sense.

Mountainmike are try to saying thar faith are more prof than evolution. This proofs are The Eucharistic Miracles. On 1996 a host in Argentina turned into flesh and blood. It was studied by Doctor Ricardo Castanon Gomez, Frederick Zugibe and Robert Lawrence find that blood was human heart tissue was alive with white blood cells intact that survived in water for 3 years. Another miracles: Tixla in Messico on 2006 a host start to bleeding and turned into heart muscle tissue alive with white blood cells. Then the two eucharistic miracles in Poland, two host bleeding and appeared heart muscle tissue in agony.

I've tasted the eucharist. It is nothing like flesh. Just like bad bread.

This debunked Darwin evolution.

Even if those eucharistic phenomena were true, it would have nothing to do with evolution.

In fact evolution could be debunking if we can observed if a organism can be created supernaturally like in the eucaristic miracles.

This does not compute.

 

[expos4ever]

Because the science method (physical closure principle) demands a physical cause. Everything that happens has a cause. In that sense I think at some point a physical cause even quantum voids are something with a cause. To assume they always existed appeals to some unscientific idea that cannot be verified by science. So it stands to reason that some uncaused non physical aspect was always there more than assuming some physical aspect was always there.

It appears that you are arguing that the "scientific" method cannot accept the possibility that something exists without physical cause. If so, I am doubtful that this is really the case - why would science rule out the possible existence of something that is not physically caused?

According to wikipedia, "The validity of the physical causal closure has long been debated."

 

[QvQ]

My post was was to show what the software could do, not the time limits at which the software operates.

How the software operates is backtracking using historical data.
The fact is you can't explain the past.
Backtracking planetary orbits might work but applied to the stock market, to a historian, the idea of using "historical data" to predict anything, past or future, is a very amusing idea.
One fact about history is no matter how much man studies history, attempting to explain that chaotic dynamic system according to his linear reasoning, hammer history into some coherent rational system based on man's notions, history always comes as a big surprise.

I can see backtracking using integrators and Lorenz to predict planetary orbits but using historical data to predict the stock market? Now that is interesting.

 

[sjastro]

How the software operates is backtracking using historical data.
The fact is you can't explain the past.
Backtracking planetary orbits might work but applied to the stock market, to a historian, the idea of using "historical data" to predict anything, past or future, is a very amusing idea.
One fact about history is no matter how much man studies history, attempting to explain that chaotic dynamic system according to his linear reasoning, hammer history into some coherent rational system based on man's notions, history always comes as a big surprise.

I can see backtracking using integrators and Lorenz to predict planetary orbits but using historical data to predict the stock market? Now that is interesting.

Being a science forum I’ve confined myself to examples where chaos theory is applicable.

Predicting the stock market falls into the category of explaining the mob mentality of buyers and sellers.
Chaos theory can’t explain or predict, if a bank reports an annual profit in the billions of dollars it is highly probable using historical data their share price will be slashed while a loss could see the share price soaring.
Explaining human behaviour individually or collectively is best left to the psychologists and not chaos theory.

 

[stevevw]

It appears that you are arguing that the "scientific" method cannot accept the possibility that something exists without physical cause. If so, I am doubtful that this is really the case - why would science rule out the possible existence of something that is not physically caused?

According to wikipedia, "The validity of the physical causal closure has long been debated."

Scientific facts or evidence is often used as the determing factor for what is real especially in public forums. The very nature of the science method (methodological naturalism) precludes anything that cannot be scientifically verified.

When I say non physical I am not speaking of say forces or fields as they are part of the naturalistic. For example science will say that consciousness is an epiphenomena of the physical brain. In otherwords its caused by the physical brain and is not something beyond the physical brain. That excludes all other possibilities.

 

[SelfSim]

Scientific facts or evidence is often used as the determing factor for what is real especially in public forums. The very nature of the science method (methodological naturalism) precludes anything that cannot be scientifically verified.

The 'very nature of the scientific method', is testing.
Things that can't be tested are beliefs.

When I say non physical I am not speaking of say forces or fields as they are part of the naturalistic. For example science will say that consciousness is an epiphenomena of the physical brain. In otherwords its caused by the physical brain and is not something beyond the physical brain. That excludes all other possibilities.

'Something' beyond the physical brain's sensory detection capabilities, yet still perceived by some people, turns out to be an untestable belief.

People often take their untestable beliefs as their meaning for what exists, (or is real).
The problem there is that people have differing and inconsistent beliefs and so that type of reality, is inconsistent across the subset of believers. That type of 'reality' does not provide the necessary basis for agreement amongst the even larger set of those who don't share in those fundamental beliefs.

 

[stevevw]

The 'very nature of the scientific method', is testing.
Things that can't be tested are beliefs.

Exactly. So the science method can only tell us about one aspect or knowledge about the world and reality. So anyone claiming that empiricle science can rule out belief or supernatural events is only making a part claim about reality. So it really comes down to epistemology. Any ontological claims by the science method beyond that one aspect of reality is then moving into belief which the science method cannot determine.

So realism through science is making a belief claim that there is really matter, forces or fields (mechanistic reductionism) outside our minds is making a belief claim and not a scientific one. That is why in people claiming that science proves that conscious experience is an epiphenomena of the physical brain is making a claim beyond science because it rules out consciousness being something beyond brain which it has no way of really knowing.

This is the paradigm difference and I think if we are to truely understand fundemental reality we need to be open to both parts of what constitutes reality. That being the quantitative and the qualitative aspects of reality. That is why many are looking at how consciousness may play a role beyond the material world whether in QM or in the macro world with things like well anything that can signify consciousness beyond brain (non local stuff beyond time and space).

'Something' beyond the physical brain's sensory detection capabilities, yet still perceived by some people, turns out to be an untestable belief.

Not really there are ways like with studies in NDE. There are entire Journals dedicated to consciousness beyond brain studies.

Besides what is wrong with belief. Phenomenal belief is not necessarily unwarrented as a measurable and real source of knowledge about the world and reality. In some ways our direct experience that causes us to believe something even if its not measurable scientifically is more real than what can be tested by science.

I mean we can see an apple and measure it and know it is a real thing. But its redness which we experience and accept as real but we cannot test that. There is lots of that sort of stuff going on which we know is real because we experience and believe its real.

People often take their untestable beliefs as their meaning for what exists, (or is real).

Which is a natural part of being a conscious being and not a completely unreliable source of knowledge about reality. But we can temper belief with rationality and also know when logic and science reach their limit and things can still be real. We live it everyday and its not all a delusion.

The strange thing is that many think its the other way around. That the rational, the human create concept that boxes reality is the illusion and conscious experience and belief is the reality or the underlying reality.

The problem there is that people have differing and inconsistent beliefs and so that type of reality, is inconsistent across the subset of believers. That type of 'reality' does not provide the necessary basis for agreement amongst the even larger set of those who don't share in those fundamental beliefs.

Yes but this can happen with reality when it comes to the objective world as well. Especially in Post Modern society where there is a dispute over what is real knowledge or is there any real knowledge. But people have dispute many things. The obvious is pretty secure but then some still will push like Flat earthers. But look at climate change and vaccines. Look at our own history, arhceology, evolution even cosmoslogy and physics there are raging disagreements about what the facts are. Heres a good one sex. Theres a growing dispute about what is a male or female.

But nevertheless I degress and don't want to get into that. But we can derive certain truths and facts from the sciences about belief. Like I said for all our history it has been highly maintained that we look to the skies and believe we are part of something greater beyond our world. This is deepely ingrained and science shows we are born this way and its not by evolution and genetics or taught.

I find it dismissing and lacking any arguement that our conscious experience and belief is just some secondary phenomena caused by naturalistic physical processes and thus unreal and not a source of true knowledge itself about reality. It goes against everything we are, our agency, our sense of self and our place in the world and how we look beyond for truth.

 

[expos4ever]

Scientific facts or evidence is often used as the determing factor for what is real especially in public forums.

Agree - people often appeal to science in this way.

The very nature of the science method (methodological naturalism) precludes anything that cannot be scientifically verified.

I doubt it - I see nothing in the scientific method, as expressed by people who actually understand what science is, that precludes the possible existence of something that cannot be demonstrated scientifically. On the other hand, I do agree that the "man in the street" - who does not really understand what the scientific method entails - may believe that if something cannot be scientifically verified, then it cannot be "real".

When I say non physical I am not speaking of say forces or fields as they are part of the naturalistic.

Understood - I consider forces and fields to be "physical" or "naturalistic" things.

For example science will say that consciousness is an epiphenomena of the physical brain.

Can you support this statement? I know what epiphenomenalism means but I am skeptical that there is a scientific consensus that consciousness is epiphenomenal. Isn't this really an open question at the present time (among scientists, that is)?

In otherwords its caused by the physical brain and is not something beyond the physical brain. That excludes all other possibilities.

Again, I understand what epiphenomenal means, but I just do not believe that there is a consensus among scientists that consciousness is epiphenomenal. For example, from wikipedia:

A number of scientists and philosophers, including William James, Karl Popper, John C. Eccles and Donald Symons, dismiss epiphenomenalism from an evolutionary perspective.[21][22][23][24][25] They point out that the view that mind is an epiphenomenon of brain activity is not consistent with evolutionary theory, because if mind were functionless, it would have disappeared long ago, as it would not have been favoured by evolution.

 

[expos4ever]

The 'very nature of the scientific method', is testing.
Things that can't be tested are beliefs.

Yes, and I would suggest that such beliefs may be true in the sense that whatever is believed could indeed possibly be the case. Likewise, such beliefs may be false - the thing "believed" may turn out to not be the case. Would you agree?

 

[expos4ever]

Like I said for all our history it has been highly maintained that we look to the skies and believe we are part of something greater beyond our world. This is deepely ingrained and science shows we are born this way and its not by evolution and genetics or taught.

Although I am not entirely sure that I understand your position, my guess is that the prevailing view among hardcore materialists is probably wrong (I know this is a vague statement since I have not defined what I mean by "hardcore materialist). For example, I cling to the belief in free will - that is "real" and not just the results of impersonal forces at work in our brain chemistry - even though many "materialists" will claim it is an illusion.

Having said this, I am doubtful you will be able to support your assertion that science shows we are born with a belief in something greater and that this belief does not arise from evolution, genetics, or via being "taught". Perhaps I misunderstand you, but it seems to me that you are rejecting the possibility that such a belief arises from evolutionary factors or environmental factors (i.e. that we are "taught" to believe such things. How do you know that evolution or environment do not play a role in the formation of such a belief?

 

[Hans Blaster]

When I say non physical I am not speaking of say forces or fields as they are part of the naturalistic. For example science will say that consciousness is an epiphenomena of the physical brain. In otherwords its caused by the physical brain and is not something beyond the physical brain. That excludes all other possibilities.

If your non-physical thing has no forces or fields, then it has no interactions with matter and does nothing. It could exist, but it would be irrelevant to physical reality.

 

[The Barbarian]

What could have developed or not is speculation. I have no idea how "deterministic" the universe really is.

If one believes in an omnipotent God, the question is ultimately meaningless.

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

 

[The Barbarian]

What specific objection do you have? I believe that Chalmers argues for the conceptual possibility of zombies while also denying that they are naturally possible. He then leverages the conceptual possibility of zombies to buttress his case that our current models of the world do not suffice to explain consciousness.

Raymond Smullyan wrote of a man who was tired of life and wanted to end it, but was sensitive to the suffering of his friends and family he would cause by ending his life. Then he learned of a drug that would destroy his consciousness, but leave his soulless body continuing on exactly as though he were still in existence. He took the drug and went to bed, happy in knowing that his suffering would be relieved without harming anyone else.

Next morning...

"...this stuff hasn't helped at all! I still obviously have a soul and am suffering as much as ever!"

Doesn't all this suggest that perhaps there might be something just a little wrong with dualism?

 

[stevevw]

If your non-physical thing has no forces or fields, then it has no interactions with matter and does nothing. It could exist, but it would be irrelevant to physical reality.

The problem is we just don't know. I mean science calls these wavy or vibtrating energy names but this doesn't explain their nature, what they really are. It just describes their behaviour. Look at dark matter something that cannot be directly seen or measured but is said to be a real thing.

If consciousness is real beyond the brain, lets say we one day show that mind can influence the physical world with say telepathy or can remotely know things. What sort of explanation could you give this. You can fit the fields or forces within the standard theory but yet there is some interaction going on beyond space and time.

I would imagine science would have a paradigm shift just like it did with the Copernican Revolution. Except maybe it would be the other way around. So it may be that the scientific paradigm just doesn't have the language, methology or formula for measuring this and a complete revolution of thinking is required.

That is what many think in several fields of science including cosmology and evolution that they are coming up against limits the scientific material and reduction cannot explain..Not because more testing or dicoveries need to be found within the same methodology but that a new kind of thinking and understanding needs to happen to account for whats actually happening.

Put it this way if there is some different kind on qualititative phenomena happening that science cannot detect or measure at present then its influence on things will still effect the results and may be the missing factors that have become the road block to science understanding fundemental reality, the theory of everything.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The problem is we just don't know. I mean science calls these wavy or vibtrating energy names but this doesn't explain their nature, what they really are. It just describes their behaviour. Look at dark matter something that cannot be directly seen or measured but is said to be a real thing.

Let me be more clear so it is harder to miss:

Your non-physical non-interaction "thing" (I don't know what word to use given the restrictions placed on it) cannot effect matter so it is irrelevant. It is not a solution to your problem, so you'll need to redefine at least one aspect of it. (it isn't "dark matter" which interacts, but far too weakly to be related to consciusness or people.)

If consciousness is real beyond the brain, lets say we one day show that mind can influence the physical world with say telepathy or can remotely know things. What sort of explanation could you give this. You can fit the fields or forces within the standard theory but yet there is some interaction going on beyond space and time.

Then there is new physics we can study. First, though, you need to find it.

I would imagine science would have a paradigm shift just like it did with the Copernican Revolution. Except maybe it would be the other way around. So it may be that the scientific paradigm just doesn't have the language, methology or formula for measuring this and a complete revolution of thinking is required.

That's a lot of wild speculation about something that is undemonstrated.

That is what many think in several fields of science including cosmology and evolution that they are coming up against limits the scientific material and reduction cannot explain..Not because more testing or dicoveries need to be found within the same methodology but that a new kind of thinking and understanding needs to happen to account for whats actually happening.

They are not, unless you can detail how cosmology or evolution has hit some sort of "material limit" what is the point of claiming otherwise.

 

[stevevw]

Let me be more clear so it is harder to miss:

Your non-physical non-interaction "thing" (I don't know what word to use given the restrictions placed on it) cannot effect matter so it is irrelevant. It is not a solution to your problem, so you'll need to redefine at least one aspect of it. (it isn't "dark matter" which interacts, but far too weakly to be related to consciusness or people.)

I think thats the issue that we cannot even think of a way to describe something whatever it is. Like consciousness for example. Science calls it an epiphenomena but whats that. Its something real yet not physical, it doesn't contain particles, forces or fields and yet its something real that happens beyond the brain. Its beyond space and time so how do you measure it.

Then there is new physics we can study. First, though, you need to find it.

Maybe but here the thing say they do find some no local influence. It cannot be directly observed or measured but only indirectly through tests like remote viewing or NDE studies. Is that really new physics. When does it cross the line where science is just measuring the effect in time and space of something supernatural.

I mean Christ was suppose to be able to heal a blind man. If we could test for that and explained the behaviour of the tissues and cells in suddenly regenerating does that mean its a natural process. It would still be supernatural and beyond what science can explain. Just because we can explain behaviour doesn't mean we can explain what is actually going on.

That's a lot of wild speculation about something that is undemonstrated.

Yes its a hyothetical to try and put ourselves in a situation where we would have to try and explain what sort of measure we could use for some influence beyond what science can measure. You have to envision the methodology and epistemics before you can come up with the measuring method.

But we sort of already do that. Take experience, the experience of colours, of a sunset or a disaster that moves and connects people and can be a force that changes things and may actually have some influence over space and time in that it may create some epiphenomena that vibrates around people like they say theres a change in the culture or atmosphere of the room. Experience is a powerful thing and we don;t fully understand how it effects things.

They are not, unless you can detail how cosmology or evolution has hit some sort of "material limit" what is the point of claiming otherwise.

I will finish this one tomorrow as its late and I will have to do a bit of thinking and gathering on this one. But a quick off the top of the head issue is agency and evolution which sort of relates to conscious experience.

How evolution by genetics and natural selection are limited in explanations by attributing agency as secondary influences when it can be argued as direct influence ie direct influence on the course of evolution even by passing genes and natural selection and thus a direct influence of agency, conscious experience on reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I will finish this one tomorrow as its late and I will have to do a bit of thinking and gathering on this one. But a quick off the top of the head issue is agency and evolution which sort of relates to conscious experience and how evolution by genetics and nmatural slection are limited in explanations by attributing agency as secondary influences when they can be argued as direct influence ie direct influence on the course of evolution even by passing genes and natural selection and this a direct influence on these reality outcomes.

So more stuff about non-physical consciousness. I thought you might have something new for us. Sigh.