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.
lol I wish. Its more about mind over matter. How the mind can alter physical outcomes like how positive and negative thinking can change the body for better or worse. How we can put our mind in a state that overcomes pain ect.Can you grow wings by thinking about it real hard?
The first 2 articles are about the scientific experiments. As I said the articles do link to the scientific support. In fact a few of those articles are the scientific papers. You obviously didn't even read them.Hold on there.
I don't want opinion pieces about this.
Show me the actual scientific data that supports the claim that consciousness creates matter. Show me the experiments that were done in the real world.
lol wish. Its more about mind over matter. How the mind can alter physical outcomes like how positive and negative thinking can change the body for better or worse. How we can put our mind in a state that overcomes pain ect.
If the mind is just a byproduct of matter then like robots and computers which are made up of mindless matter and cannot change their software or hardware humans as mindless matter should not be able to use their minds to change their physical outcomes such as positive thinking changes health outcomes.
As I said the articles do link to the scientific support. In fact a few of those articles are the scientific papers. You obviously didn't even read them.
Rather than link straight to technical papers here are some articles arguing for these ideas in a easy to understand way but with links to the papers.
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
Putting Mind Back into Nature: A Tribute to Henry P. Stapp
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1904/1904.10528.pdf
The Case For Panpsychism
a number of leading philosophers and neuroscientists are now finding that working within a panpsychist framework bears fruit.
The Case For Panpsychism | Issue 121 | Philosophy Now
At Nautilus: Electrons DO have a “rudimentary mind”
Panpsychists in science believe that nature is all there is but, they say, it includes consciousness as a fundamental fact of nature
At Nautilus: Electrons DO have a “rudimentary mind”
Integrated Information Theory
Tononi's theory of Integrated Information Theory (IIT), published in the journal BMC Neuroscience, is one of a small class of promising models of consciousness. “IIT is a very mathematical theory.
Can our brains help prove the universe is conscious?
Minding matter
Many prominent architects of 20th-century science have affirmed a unified, collective aspect of consciousness, in which all individual minds are connected as a single whole.
Materialism alone cannot explain the riddle of consciousness | Aeon Essays
Consciousness: here, there and everywhere?
Integrated Information Theory can explain a range of clinical and laboratory findings, makes a number of testable predictions and extrapolates to a number of problematic conditions
Consciousness: here, there and everywhere? | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Quantum Bayesianism
Experiments have confirmed that — as predicted by quantum mechanics — reality is contextual, which contradicts at least intuitive formulations of realism and corroborates the hypothesis of a mental universe.
http://ispcjournal.org/journals/2017-19/Kastrup_19.pdf
Non-local consciousness in the universe: panpsychism, psi& mind over matter in a hyper dimensional physics
the paradigm of non-local consciousness in a participatory universe
View of Non-local consciousness in the universe: panpsychism, psi & mind over matter in a hyper-dimensional physics
Simple .. its not circular.That's right. How can a concept of the mind that claims matter is real be verified by a concept of the mind. Its circular reasoning.
Agreed.Understood .. (from the scientific model practical utility purpose/viewpoint), but unfortunately such a definition would still depend on human observations, language, meanings and thus, consciousness. In the context of this philosophical discussion, that dependence is thus far unavailable and may well be unachievable in the long run, given we can't even agree on an objective definition even amongst ourselves.
Quite - so far, it's the only way we can generate testable hypotheses...The scientific 'materialistic'/matter/mechanistic 'emergent behaviour based definitions, I think, are likely our only bet on coming up with a consistent one for the purpose of making progress in understanding of ourselves.
For the record, will even atheists agree that the Bible says that God is invisible?Quite - so far, it's the only way we can generate testable hypotheses...
You'll find it easier to grasp if you make an effort to drop your dualistic bias, stop thinking of the mind as a 'thing' and see it as a label for what the brain does. Then you can think about consciousness as part of that process.If the mind is just a byproduct of matter (mindless matter) then it should not be able to change the form and function of our bodies. That would be like the knobs on a machine or the images on a computer screen can change it's software or hardware.
Not really - that mind just has to decide what it means by 'real' in the given context. We have a general everyday consensus about what we consider to be 'real', but like most human concepts it's pretty fuzzy at the edges and is context-dependent. As Wittgenstein observed, the meaning of words is in their usage.That's right. How can a concept of the mind that claims matter is real be verified by a concept of the mind. Its circular reasoning.
IIT really has nothing to do with Orch-OR (Penrose & Hameroff's idea of quantum consciousness). IIT suggests a direct correlation between the degree to which information is integrated in a system (they have a mathematical definition) and the degree of consciousness of that system.The only paper that is linked here is a review of "orch or" theory and does not actually have any research to support said theory.
How is that relevant? - if you're saying that the existence of God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, I'm happy to agree.For the record, will even atheists agree that the Bible says that God is invisible?
1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
So you don't want to admit that the Bible says He is invisible?How is that relevant?
Easier to agree when it's technobabble, isn't it?FrumiousBandersnatch said:- if you're saying that the existence of God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, I'm happy to agree.
No, I'm not saying.- if you're saying ...
So you don't want to explain how it's relevant?So you don't want to admit that the Bible says He is invisible?
OK.No, I'm not saying.
I asked if atheists will agree that THE BIBLE SAYS that God is invisible.
No, I'm not saying.
I asked if atheists will agree that THE BIBLE SAYS that God is invisible.
Thank you, Kylie.I'll agree to that.
The Bible does say that God is invisible.
But the Bible also says that God can be seen, like when Moses saw his back parts.
In fact, I bet the Bible says lots of things that you don't take literally.
Thank you, Kylie.
And I'm being serious.
Thank you.
A couple of things, so you won't understand:The Bible also says that goats having sex while looking at streaked rods causes them to conceive offspring that are spotted and speckled.
A couple of things, so you won't understand:
In short ... God did it.
- That was a DREAM, containing a set of instructions for Jacob to follow.
- And Jacob having followed those instructions, God did the rest of the work.
Your word "causes," being in the present tense to describe a one-time miracle of God, shows you have not a single clue as to what happened.
Nor will you understand it, either; since it contains no technobabble.
How would you know it though, if it was true?A text can say something, that doesn't make it true.
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?