Bold. must be true.

Bold is for demarcation. You know that, but you troll anyway.

The thought police have come out in force.

The point is that pretty much everyone agrees that materialization is swampy. It is archaic. Nothing can be said about anything without an observer. it is the mind that sees, hears, feels, smells and everyone's mind is different.

Mind is the memory that it is creating.

The point is that pretty much everyone agrees that materialization is swampy.

Oh boy. You're speaking from the Book of Rich again. Not only does not everyone agree that materialization is "swampy," but not everyone even knows what (or agrees on) what swampy means.

Now, if you have problem with this, then you can keep trying to keep the myth of materialism alive on philosophy forums, but it is pretty much dead on all physics forums.

The only one who has been trying to keep a myth alive on this forum has been your trying to keep your myth of "all is quanta" alive. It should and would be dead if you didn't keep repeating it like a mantra.

The total nonsense of everything magically popping out of the brain including the illusions that it is not popping out of the brain. Such silliness is the best that modern philosophy can propose? No wonder it is considered irrelevant.

The only one who has mentioned the nonsense of everything magically popping out of the brain has been you right there. And your silly "all is quanta" mantra nearly replicates that. No wonder it is considered greatly silly.

Talk to Penrose. You obviously have a disagreement with him. You can explain to him how quantum states is all wrong.

BTW, swampy is an image of muckiness, lack of clarity, muddy, incoherent. You know, like a swamp that you might have seen somewhere.

You talk to Penrose; my post was addressed to your arguments, not his. And I have no idea if I agree with him on his notion of "swampy" when I don't even know what he means by that.

Sorry. It's the best way to describe this proposed scientific philosophical view.

Sorry, that's the Book of Rich speaking again. Too bad it's far from a best seller.

Nope, it was in the link that you were begging for. Your brand of science is archaic.

No, it being the best way of explaining that view of science wasnt' proven in that link. Sorry.

And you have no brand of science; just lovely fantasies from the Book of Rich.

Materialism is dead. It has been for 100 years.

The modern search for quantum consciousness. The Book of Rich is the one to read.

https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

"However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules. The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations."

The Book of Rich says that quantum vibrations are the mind. This is what modern philosophy should be investigating. Ignore materialist science which has long been antiquated and should only be studied as a relic of the past.

Yes, we can see The Book of Rich says quantum vibrations are the mind. Too bad your link doesn't say that.

Keep trying.

Yep. That is what the Book of Rich is saying. Any young philosopher who is looking into the nature of consciousness/mind should be thoroughly immersed in the type of research I have referenced as well as Bergson, Sheldrake, and Stephen Robbins. There are tremendously exciting possibilities out there. Just make sure you find an environment that encourages such endeavors. In such research, young philosophers can find new meaning in their pursuits and their lives. Allow your mind to create meaning.

The biggest problem I find with your ideas and posts are that they are just boring. They add nothing, they create nothing, the inspire nothing. They are literally empty.

Those who cannot create relegate themselves to becoming stop signs.

Are there size boundaries to quantum theory? It has now been experimenting demonstrated at the molecule level.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/6

"Fledgling theories of macrorealism may well form the basis of the next generation “upgrade” to quantum theory by setting the scale of the quantum-classical boundary. Thanks to the results of this experiment, we can be sure that the boundary cannot lie below the scale at which the cesium atom has been shown to behave like a wave. How high is this scale? A theoretical measure of macroscopicity [8] (see 18 April 2013 Synopsis) gives the cesium atom a modest ranking of 6.8, above the only other object tested with null measurements [5], but far below where most suspect the boundary lies. (Schrödinger’s cat is a 57.) In fact, matter-wave interferometry experiments have already shown interference fringes with Buckminsterfullerene molecules [9], boasting a rating as high as 12.

@Rich, hijacking quantumatics for idealism isn't philosophy, it's common in New Age woo though.
Have you discovered a derivation of qualia from quantum mechanics? (I suppose that would be something.)
The observer effect illustrates a difference between causation and interaction.
I haven't come across anything in quantum mechanics that necessitates what we think of a minds, nor derive minds, nor is incompatible with minds; maybe you've come across something otherwise?

You Aren't Living in a Hologram, Even if You Wish You Were (Ryan F Mandelbaum, Gizmodo, Jan 2017)

I haven't come across anything in quantum mechanics that necessitates what we think of a minds, — jorndoe

I am hoping that I am not the only person on this forum that observes the utter irony and pathos of such a statement.

↪Thanatos Sand The biggest problem I find with your ideas and posts are that they are just boring. They add nothing, they create nothing, the inspire nothing. They are literally empty

Ah...and finally the banal, ambiguous, and nebulous personal attacks. Considering the "quality" of the ideas you do like, I consider your disdain for mine a compliment and a comfort.

@Rich, are you conflating the theory itself and what it describes (it seems you were conflating epistemology and ontology earlier)?
The statement you quoted is referring to the latter.

Have you discovered a derivation of qualia from quantum mechanics? — jorndoe

Quantum mechanics are the equations and the Heisenberg people. What I am describing is metaphysical interpretations. My ontology does not require on rest on quantum theory. It is based upon the everyday real experience of creative mind, memory, and duration which everyone I have ever met identifies with. It is universal.

Glad to hear. If you want more compliments just ask.

The fact that you call it 'a cup' and that it performs that function is dependent on human designation, perception and convention. If you were a micro-organism-sized intelligence that lived in the water in the cup, it might be 'the ocean', as far as you're concerned. You imagine the cup 'being there', in the cupboard, when nobody's around looking at it, but that's still an image, an imaginary act, constituted by your human mind, which classifies objects according to their shape, function and so on and situates them in the imaginary 'empty space'. There is no intrinsic cup apart from that. — Wayfarer

Sure.

What are the microbes swimming in? The cup. They see an ocean, we see a cup, but we are talking about the very same thing.

So we can conclude that there is a something that is an ocean to the microbes and a cup to us.

What is not justified is the conclusion that there is neither an ocean nor a cup.

There is a popular misunderstanding of Special Relativity that comes to mind here.

Folk read a pop science book and walk away with the misunderstanding that what is true or false about he movement of objects in space is relative to your position and velocity. So Ann will see an object moving to the right, Beth will see the very same object moving to the left, and that there is no truth here, no fact of the matter.

But Special Relativity actually concludes the exact opposite. What is happening is the same for both Ann and Beth. Ann will see the object moving to the right, and also be able to calculate that Beth will see it moving to the left. Beth will see it moving to the left, and be able to calculate that Ann sees it moving to the right.

They see the very same thing in two different ways, and are able to conclude that they see the very saem thing in two different ways.

Davidson can be seen as taking this Principal of Relativity and applying it to language.

What are the microbes swimming in? The cup. They see an ocean, we see a cup, but we are talking about the very same thing. — Banno

Hence Radical Interpretation.

People are, by and large, instinctive realists. They believe that the world of the senses, and the world described by science, is the real world. It is very hard to see it otherwise. Magee's book makes the point that Schopenhauer's (and Kant's) philosophy has some points in common with Indian philosophy. But he also points out that Vedanta, for example, is a philosophy which traditionally takes decades of study to understand. It's actually a very subversive type of philosophy, in that it undermines what most people take for granted. — Wayfarer

One problem with this approach is that somehow, despite each of us being in our own subjective world, we manage to agree on the vast majority of things.

How does that happen?

One problem with this approach is that somehow, despite each of us being in our own subjective world, we manage to agree on the vast majority of things. — Banno

There are similarities and differences that we share in our perceptions. Some may see one and someone else will see red. A keen eye may see a fish, and someone else will see nothing. When there is agreement it is learned agreement. Who knows what someone else is actually experiencing in their mind? We just agree that this thing we will call a fish.

Sheldrake explains the similarities by what calls Morphic Resonance which it's hierarchical in nature. The differences of course are the differences in our own skills in perception. Someone who practices specific skills of awareness will see and differentiate much more than one who doesn't.

What are the microbes swimming in? The cup. They see an ocean, we see a cup, but we are talking about the very same thing. — Banno

Fleshing out the pertinent language game?

"We are swimming in the ocean" is true for microbes IFF microbes are swimming in the cup.

Compare "Ann sees the object move to the right" is true IFF Beth sees it move to the left.

(adding all relevant velocities and such)

"We are swimming in the ocean" is true for microbes IFF microbes are swimming in the cup. — Banno

I didn't know microbes could talk.