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

[Hans Blaster]

Absolutely... but with one minor caveat, and that's the degree to which anything can ever be said to be provable. For example, you may believe that you can prove that the world is round, but that doesn't stop someone from disputing it, and therefore when dealing with other minds your ability to prove something is never absolute.

First though, a little background. I'm an epistemological solipsist as opposed to a metaphysical solipsist. The former simply holding to the claim that nothing can be known to exist outside of one's own mind. Whereas the latter holds to an absolute, that their mind is all that exists. To an epistemological solipsist like myself that claim makes no more sense to me than it does to you.

As an epistemological solipsist this is what I know... I exist. But beyond that I also know that you exist. The nature of your existence is unknown to me, but the fact of your existence isn't. What's germane to your question however, is that if this is true of me, and you're a conscious being like I am, then it's also true of you. You know that you exist, and you know that I exist.

The essence of solipsism is the understanding that there's a limit to what a conscious being can know. Whether or not you accept this is up to you, and whether or not it matters is also up to you. Solipsism is simply about recognizing the difference between what you can know to be true and what you can't, and one of the things that you can't know to be true is whether anything actually exists outside of your own mind.

Now this may seem like a perfectly useless philosophical concept, but you'd be surprised at how often people assume things to be true, that they can't actually know to be true... like whether there's a God... or whether there isn't. In spite of all the protestations to the contrary, nobody actually knows. That's what solipsism is good for, to remind us of just how much of what we believe to be true, we can't actually know to be true.

Like many things, solipsism is best used in moderation.

 

[SelfSim]

... First though, a little background. I'm an epistemological solipsist as opposed to a metaphysical solipsist. The former simply holding to the claim that nothing can be known to exist outside of one's own mind.

Meh .. inconsistent.
You obviously conceive of the things that you cannot know which may still exist outside of your own mind .. and yet your mind was involved in reaching that conclusion every step along the way ... which means all of that is still inside your mind.
The concept of 'outside' your mind has no meaning for you, because knowing that concept is beyond your mind's reach/capability.

The essence of solipsism is the understanding that there's a limit to what a conscious being can know. Whether or not you accept this is up to you, and whether or not it matters is also up to you. Solipsism is simply about recognizing the difference between what you can know to be true and what you can't, and one of the things that you can't know to be true is whether anything actually exists outside of your own mind.

Yet you still don't rule out the possibility that some things may exist 'outside' your mind .. using your own mind to conceive and then realise that possibility, without ever knowing the truth of that possibility.

Now this may seem like a perfectly useless philosophical concept, but you'd be surprised at how often people assume things to be true, that they can't actually know to be true...

Yet you assume the concept of 'outside/inside' your mind to be true(?)

like whether there's a God... or whether there isn't. In spite of all the protestations to the contrary, nobody actually knows. That's what solipsism is good for, to remind us of just how much of what we believe to be true, we can't actually know to be true.

Any '-isms' built on a fundamental assumed belief, are flawed for making conclusions about existence/reality.
Science does not assume beliefs .. it tests 'em first.

 

[SelfSim]

Like many things, solipsism is best used in moderation.

Any ideas drawn from solipsism (or any other -isms') would only be used if they're testable.
As a result, I don't personally see moderation as being a particularly useful criterion in science, eh(?)

 

[SelfSim]

i see the patterns of the process of my soul in everything ... the whole of the creation speeks to it ... our souls journey being the pinnacle part of the creation and why Jesus preached the kingdom ... the kingdom being our soul ...

Wrong forum .. wrong thread.

 

[stevevw]

I wrote:



to which you replied:



This doesn't even come close to addressing my little bit of speculation despite writing it in apparent reply, in fact you go the other way an characterize those doing things in this non-physical way as "atheist scientists". Do you understand my point in the top quoted text?

Let me try to rephrase it, perhaps that will work better.

All of these scientists you claiming back these non-physical/supernatural-like explanations (including pervasive mind or consciousness) grew up in societies with strong pro-supernatural biases, because all human societies have strong pro-supernatural biases. (Some of them seem to be getting better, but not really that much.) Further, even many "hardened" atheist types (like myself) were raised with direct supernatural indoctrination. (I became an atheist because I rejected your god as implausible, not because I never heard of it.)

Thus when they run into things they don't understand how they work, or ways to comprehend them to brains accustomed to ordinary phenomena, sometimes terms that echo supernatural language gets used (cf. "spooky action at a distance"). This is just a deficit of good reference points. Perhaps if our species had a weaker need to tell stories more "dry" terms would be used and this kind of confusion would arise less often. That scientists working on fundamental properties of matter and QM use terms that echo supernaturalism IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR IT.

Even if being an atheist some how cleansed one of prior supernatural conditioning, you can not just broadly associate areas of science with "atheist scientists" like that (oh, if you only could). Scientists are not so uniformly non-believers as you might think. (And before you post long exposition of scientists identifying as atheist and talking such ways, they *REALLY* need to actually work on the "spooky" thing specifically, so I don't care what Neil Tyson said about any of these things.)

As to the alleged growing popularity of these ideas, I've seen no evidence of it in the place where it should be found: the study of fundamental fields and the nature of quantum mechanics. Could I have missed it (yes), but your not even exposed to the content that would properly indicate such.

No my point was that behind all assumptions even scientific ones that fundemental reality does not involve the supernatural are based on a prior belief in what consitutes fundemental reality. Its ontology. Its more a question of epistemology 'how we come to know reality' and not what actually is reality.

So the woo, or myth or spooky stuff you refer to is not seen as that by those more open to these ideas. They are actually seen as viable alternative explanations. What your doing is assuming its all myth in the first place before its even investigated. And when I say investigated I don't mean by the same methology as empiricle sciences because they cannot measure this in the first place. They have rejected it with their priori beliefs.

We know that reality as a whole, not just the quantifying of reality is not made up of purely material and naturalistic things by the fact there are real phenomena in the world that are more abstract and transcendental. So to claim that the science method is the measure of ultimate reality and is in a position to claim all these alternative ideas are woo or unreal is unjustified.

Those claiming this are basing their position on beliefs every bit as much as those who support these alternative ideas.

 

[SelfSim]

No my point was that behind all assumptions even scientific ones that fundemental reality does not involve the supernatural are based on a prior belief in what consitutes fundemental reality. Its ontology. Its more a question of epistemology 'how we come to know reality' and not what actually is reality.

No .. in science, objective reality is a possible conclusion following testing and evidence.
Science says nothing about 'what constitutes fundamental reality' in the absence of objective testability.
Science starts out with no preconceived assumptions .. otherwise there'd be no reason to do the testing.
You have the scientific process backwards here.

So the woo, or myth or spooky stuff you refer to is not seen as that by those more open to these ideas. They are actually seen as viable alternative explanations. What your doing is assuming its all myth in the first place before its even investigated. And when I say investigated I don't mean by the same methology as empiricle sciences because they cannot measure this in the first place. They have rejected it with their priori beliefs.

The untestability of some 'alternative explanation', in theory, renders it ineligible for further consideration via the scientific method.

We know that reality as a whole, not just the quantifying of reality is not made up of purely material and naturalistic things by the fact there are real phenomena in the world that are more abstract and transcendental.

Huh? Like what?
Cite the examples please?

So to claim that the science method is the measure of ultimate reality and is in a position to claim all these alternative ideas are woo or unreal is unjustified.

Those claiming this are basing their position on beliefs every bit as much as those who support these alternative ideas.

Which is why no scientist, worth their salt, would ever make claim that the 'scientific method is the measure of ultimate reality'.

 

[Larniavc]

The Mandelbrot Set is a complex Mathmatical equation which seems to reveal infinite patterns in Math. It also is known for containing Fractals, the Fibonacci Sequence and Pi (Golden Circle.

It seems when all the numbers in the Mandelbrot Set are given a point of colour they form an unusual pattern which was a surpirse to Mathmaticians.

These patterns add up perfectly containing Fibonacci Sequences that can go on forever creating more and more complex patterns that are self similar in that the same Mandelbrot patterns repeats forever spurning out new patterns that become Mandelbrot patterns. This seems to be beyond what any human could have compreheneded or created.

The facinating thing is these patterns are seen in nature, in some flowers like Sun flowers and vegetables like the Cauliflower, on Pine cones, branches and leaves of trees, in river systems, coast lines, snow flakes, lightening bolts and spiral galaxies.

Is this a sign of some underlying Mind behind nature. Is Math discovered or invented or both. Why does the universe and nature fit so well with Math and how is it that we as intelligent beings are designed to know this.

How does it imply a mind?

 

[Larniavc]

Even that electrons themselves have an element of mind.

But they don’t though. How could they?

 

[Larniavc]

theres a growing support for something like a Mind or consciousness field fundementally.

No there isn’t. Philosopher’s might but not actual scientists.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We can by when the flesh reacts and responds to conscious experience. Like needing food for energy the body reacts, insulin levels drop ect. But the feeling of hunger is on another plane. Its a experiential phenomena. Why should we feel hungry when we need food. Why should we feel awe during a sunset.

We can even conjure these experiences into being without the flesh part of the body provoking this and then this effects our physical boddies the other way around. These experiences are not in the mechanical processes themselves but our bodies do react when we have conscious experience.

In fact the power of their experiences can change the world. But they cannot be explained by purely as you say interactions with the flesh. They transcend that type of process and cause and effect. Yet they are just as real and change change reality. Whatever we want to call it, a new force, field or some unknown invisible phenomena its real in the world and cannot be explained in fact will never be explained by material science.

These interactions between the flesh and experience/emotion have in many cases already been tied to specific neurotransmitters and hormones -- aka, chemicals. Chemicals are material.

 

[Hans Blaster]

[In reference to the boundary between the physical/natural and the non-physical/super-natural.]

I think the boundary has been demonstrated. For example despite saying that consciousness is an epiphenomena from the physical brain it only correlates consciousness to physical processes. It doesn't explain the nature of the experience itself and where it originates from. It only assumes it originates from the physical brain because thats all it can explain things by.

The localization of thought, experience, and consciousness in humans to the head (particularly the brain) was done a long time ago. Damage the brain (non-lethally) and you may damage thought, personality, or consciousness. Damage the hand (or even remove it) and no such impact occurs. (Sure it will hurt a lot, but Galen worked out that sensation, pain, and motor control travel to the brain by the nerves over 1800 years ago in pre-Christian Rome.)

Consciousness in humans is known to be localized in the brain, and similarly in other animals that demonstrate some sort of consciousness. This isn't some presupposition about naturalism, this is empirically demonstrated. Any non-physical sort of consciousness appears to *only* interact with brain. (Or more likely, does not exist.)

So if consciousness (the Force) is some beyond brain force science has crossed the line by attributing consciousness to the physical thus dismissing something that transcends the physical.

Neurobiology has crossed no such boundary. It is science and sciences operate in the physical world. It (and related sciences) have localized consciousness and are working to understand the mechanism. That's what they *should* do. If they ultimately fail and leave behind a gap, then perhaps we can talk again.

 

[partinobodycular]

With the thread currently leaning toward the discussion of woo, I just wanted to make something perfectly clear. Solipsism isn't woo, and it shouldn't tend toward a belief in woo... exactly the opposite.

Solipsism simply recognizes the limits of what a conscious mind is capable of knowing, and the only way that it's capable of knowing that is through science. A solipsist is also quick to recognize an assumption... which consists of anything that can't possibly be known to be true. Such as whether or not reality exists outside of one's own mind. If you can prove it... a solipsist will accept it, but if you can't, a solipsist is always going to take it with an appropriately sized grain of salt.

In other words solipsism is simply skepticism or agnosticism pushed to its logical conclusion. This doesn't render a solipsist incapable of philosophy, or theology, or any other fanciful musings. They just recognize that in the end there are things that they can know, and there are things that they can't. Full stop.

 

[Tuur]

Solipsism simply recognizes the limits of what a conscious mind is capable of knowing, and the only way that it's capable of knowing that is through science.

Solipsism maintains that we cannot be sure what exists other than self. To have science, you must accept the postulate that there exists a reality outside the mind and that this reality is orderly. That's beyond solipsism, for if we cannot be sure what exists other than self, we cannot be sure that anything beyond that is real, and that includes science.

 

[partinobodycular]

To have science, you must accept the postulate that there exists a reality outside the mind and that this reality is orderly.

I'll admit that you're free to believe whatever you want to, but technically that's not correct. Reality exists, whether it does so outside the mind or solely within it. It doesn't make any difference. If it's orderly then it's amenable to science, if it's not then it isn't amenable to conscious beings with the capacity to employ science.

The tricky question is... is it orderly because we're in it, or are we in it because it's orderly? However, methinks that I've gotten way off topic, so I'll graciously step aside.

 

[SelfSim]

The tricky question is... is it orderly because we're in it, or are we in it because it's orderly? However, methinks that I've gotten way off topic, so I'll graciously step aside.

Either way, its a mystery! .. (And one which motivates continual exploration which is, itself, an intellectual activity we all seem enjoy being engaged in)!

 

[SelfSim]

Solipsism maintains that we cannot be sure what exists other than self. To have science, you must accept the postulate that there exists a reality outside the mind and that this reality is orderly. That's beyond solipsism, for if we cannot be sure what exists other than self, we cannot be sure that anything beyond that is real, and that includes science.

Not so.
The notion that 'there exists a reality outside the mind' is Realism .. not Solipsism.
In all cases, the meanings of the terms you use there: 'reality' and 'existence', are demonstrably human-mind assigned meanings, which is consistent with @partinobodycular's take on his version of Solipsism.

 

[Tuur]

I'll admit that you're free to believe whatever you want to, but technically that's not correct. Reality exists, whether it does so outside the mind or solely within it. It doesn't make any difference. If it's orderly then it's amenable to science, if it's not then it isn't amenable to conscious beings with the capacity to employ science.

Yes, reality exists. If it didn't, science would be meaningless. My point is that solipsism, holding that we cannot really be sure of anything beyond our own mind, isn't compatible with the concept of objective reality.

 

[partinobodycular]

My point is that solipsism, holding that we cannot really be sure of anything beyond our own mind, isn't compatible with the concept of objective reality.

Your opinion is duly noted, understandable, and appreciated, but like I said we're off topic. So as frustrating as it is for me, I'm gonna thank you for listening and maybe we'll revisit it at some point in the future. I'll be around.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, reality exists. If it didn't, science would be meaningless. My point is that solipsism, holding that we cannot really be sure of anything beyond our own mind, isn't compatible with the concept of objective reality.

i) Of course reality exists. The point is that sentence is without any meaning whatsoever, in the absence of the mind conceiving it and expressing it.
ii) Objective reality acquires its meaning via science's consistent objective testing/results. The point there is that it also takes a mind to do that.

Evidence of a healthy human mind's capabilities are all over statements (i) and (ii) above, which then allows us to conclude the obvious mind dependency behind how reality/existence is given its meaning and exactly *zip* for the idea that reality/existence is somehow independent of that mind.

 

[stevevw]

These interactions between the flesh and experience/emotion have in many cases already been tied to specific neurotransmitters and hormones -- aka, chemicals. Chemicals are material.

Neurotransmitters and hormones -- aka, chemicals don't explain experience itself but only a correlation with it. No more than wires and transistors in radios can explain radio waves, They are just mechanical behaviour that accompanies the phenomena.

Perhaps like radio recievers the brain acts a a reciever and transmittor of consciousness thats fundemental in the universe. It may take a certain brain state or threshold that makes consciousness so the brain is the facilitator.

Also Chalmers Zombie thought experiment is useful. If consciousness is just the result of the physical brain then why should electrical signals, neurons create consciousness. Why should a non conscious mechanical apartus be able to create self awareness. Technically robots, complex computers don't have consciousness as its not about wiring or signals.

As Chalmers said we could have evolved as Zombies and be able to do everything a conscious human can do but without consciousness. So why consciousness.