Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Been there, done that. Not sure about the useful part tho.What a waste of time ... what a waste of a life!
Get a job and become useful.
Rather than continue to talk past each other, I'll try to change the question so that we can get a different perspective on the relationship between "A" and "B". (We're both fans of pondering the imponderable...right?)
"A" is the microscopic world of interacting quantum fields.
"B" is the macroscopic world of particles, forces, matter, and brains.
So here's the question. Are actions in the macroscopic world (us) responsible for changes in the microscopic world (the quantum fields), or are actions in the quantum fields responsible for the changes in us?
Which is it? Does our macroscopic world cause changes in the quantum fields, or is it the other way around?
If the former is true, that the macroscopic is responsible for changes in the microscopic then you actually have a case for the brain being responsible for consciousness. On the other hand, if the microscopic is responsible for changes in the macroscopic then it's actually the microscopic that's responsible for consciousness, and the perception that it's the brain that's the causal agent is simply an illusion, because it's those darn quantum fields that are the cause, and the brain is just a material projection of what's happening in the fields.
There is of course a third option, that there's an interaction between the two such that we're living in an observer created reality, arising out of a quantum reality, but not entirely subjugated to it. Whatever that means. (Of course that then leads to the whole chicken and the egg problem)
Here's to pondering the imponderable.
The kind of ignore I responded to, was within quotes and capitalised.Hardly. More like "don't suffer fools gladly".
It's super nice weather here by the shore of the South China Sea.Been there, done that. Not sure about the useful part tho.
Alas summer is over and cold weather has set in, so I have way too much free time on my hands. So unless I become bored with posting you people may be in for a long six months. "Ignore" might be a tempting alternative at this point.
As a matter of interest does your media report on the South and East China seas being geopolitical flashpoints as Australian warships along with other foreign vessels are frequently harassed by Chinese fighter planes, ships and submarines.It's super nice weather here by the shore of the South China Sea.
No flashes going on here.As a matter of interest does your media report on the South and East China seas being geopolitical flashpoints as Australian warships along with other foreign vessels are frequently harassed by Chinese fighter planes, ships and submarines.
Why China's challenges to Australian ships in the South and East China Seas are likely to continue
Yes that's what I have been saying, that all with have is 'Mind' so any ideas about reality including the so called scientific method are concepts of the Mind. It supposes that there is something real beyond the Mind being matter which we cannot verify because we cannot get outside our Minds.'Material and immaterial phenomena' are both demonstrably concepts of the mind. Try conceiving of either independently from your mind. You will not succeed.
I agree once again. Therefore the idea of something outside the brain like material matter is a Mind concept and not actually a material thing.Exactly the same applies for: 'consciouness as an emergent property' of a brain, as well as the notion of 'a reality outside of the brain'. They are all mind concepts, which we currently know due to abundant testing, where it can be shown, consistently, that an active healthy mind is present (and conscious).
Yes I agree. That is why Mind is the fundamental reality, its all we can possibly know. The subject (Mind) is at the center just as many of the pioneers of QP claimed.There is *zip* evidence for any of those concepts existing independently from a mind/brain.
'Non material'
Yes but what I am saying is Mind itself is non-material from the physical brain. If Mind is a force or vehicle if you like for creating concepts about the world then Mind itself itself is a non-physical force in the world that influences and effects reality.is still a mind concept .. (which you appear to have overlooked).
No I am not saying that. I am saying that its actually science that claims there's something like empty space (vacuum) beyond our Mind. I am saying that all we have is Mind and Mind is not a material thing.Your algebra of models is simply wrong because your model of 'material/non-material' assumes, without evidence, that things like 'empty space' (or 'the non material') exist somehow, (magically), independently of the minds which conceive of those models,
I am not sure what you mean by the "mind dependency of them". On what the concepts of the materialin spite of the abundancy of objective evidence supporting the mind dependency of them.
Your
OK you've lost me a bit. I not arguing that there is a true empty space out there. That is what science does. It assumes there is such a things as 'Matter' outside the brain. It assumes the a billiard ball schema for reality outside the Mind.argument is the circular one because its based on an assumed 'true' posit (eg: that things like 'empty space' or 'the immaterial' exist independently of the minds which conceive of those models), whereas the objective evidence supporting all concepts being mind dependent, is merely where the test evidence takes us (with no need for any logically 'true' imperatives, such as the ones you've based your argument upon). This is how scientifically formed arguments differ, in a big way, from purely logic based arguments.
I think it spells our exactly what I am saying which is that we cannot get rid of Mind (the conscious subjects mind) from anything we do including creating concepts about material reality and measuring them. This can be summed up with the following article.Word salad, I'm afraid.
Yes but what I am saying is Mind itself is non-material from the physical brain. If Mind is a force or vehicle if you like for creating concepts about the world then Mind itself itself is a non-physical force in the world that influences and effects reality.
Minds are very capable of generating physical force and changing whatever you mean by the word 'reality' there .. Not bad for something that is supposedly 'a non physical force' (.. whatever that means .. more word salad there methinks .. ie: any without meaning?).stevevw said:Yes but what I am saying is Mind itself is non-material from the physical brain. If Mind is a force or vehicle if you like for creating concepts about the world then Mind itself itself is a non-physical force in the world that influences and effects reality.
So what?.. As we have seen, matter is a theoretical abstraction in and of mind. So when materialists try to reduce mind to matter, they are effectively trying to reduce mind to one of mind’s own conceptual creations.
But "Mind" is religion, or woo woo."Mind" is very clearly the product of brains.
Brains run on neuron-neuron connections.
Neuron interactions run on neurotransmitters.
Neurotransmitters function through chemistry.
Chemistry is built on molecular bonds.
Molecular bonds are the product of quantum mechanical Interations between electrons and protons.
Protons are composite particles made of quarks and gluons.
Electrons, quarks, and gluons are quantized excitations of fundamental fields. As is all matter.
Minds are material in origin.
It's Autumn windy, here. Not cold (13C), but the clouds are very fast, today.It's super nice weather here by the shore of the South China Sea.
La Niña doing her thing?It's Autumn windy, here. Not cold (13C), but the clouds are very fast, today.
But "Mind" is religion, or woo woo.
"soul" is what you describe. Mind is a well studied phenomenon in psychology. (In fact psychology is the study of the mind.)
That uppercase Mind is what I meant
Your reading ability is what doesn't.Personally, I think it's an overstep for either Skeptics or Christians to posit too firmly either way...
To cite an uppercase "Mind" concept as a form of complete "woo woo" doesn't quite cut the rational mustard, Estrid. But like the rest of us, you're free to mind your own opinion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?