Comments

  • Scientific research takes notice of life and consciousness after death
    Sam Parnia was not involved in the research. He is known for running the AWARE near-death experiences study and for advocating highly speculative ideas about consciousness.SophistiCat

    Good for him. Always nice to hear of a scientist talking about consciousness rather than using placeholders like "gene transcription" or do genes have a mind if their own? The kind that continues to reproduce whether or not the body is still alive? Is this the "selfish gene" I hear so much about?
  • Subjective Realism in a holographic universe
    fundamental dynamics of spacetimeapokrisis

    No, it is totally reworking the underlying theory of gravity.

    There is no space-time other than a metaphysical interpretation of GR mathematics. The holographic approach is looking at it in terms of quantum information entanglement. No space-time anywhere though the mathematics may turn out to be equivalent - or maybe not.

    Which of these stories apply to a flesh and blood organ like a brainapokrisis

    Well, the flesh and blood brain is just like everything else, quantum information (or as Bergson described it 100 years ago, Memory) meshed into the holographic fabric.
  • Radical doubt
    Your delusional beliefMichael Ossipoff

    May I return the favor, which was my original point, but I believe I said it far more eloquently.
  • Subjective Realism in a holographic universe
    Yes the brain like everything else is embedded in the holographic weave of the universe, but its purpose is not to store memory but rather to reconstruct it. Stephen Robbins had some excellent videos explaining this idea, which is based upon Bergson's metaphysics. A bit slow to get to the point, but very methodical. Just think of the brain as a the source of the reconstructive wave.

  • Instinct vs. Cultural Learning in Humans
    But I already recognized there are some basic drives that are indeed baked into the equationsschopenhauer1

    These aren't just some basic, uninteresting drives. They are behavior that make up the vast amount of our existence.

    Not exactly. I also recognized that animals learn too- but much of their learning is also innate in that they cannot but "help" but learn.schopenhauer1

    You have no evidence of this? How did you arrive at this. Was it actual observations or biases formed during the educational process. Maybe biases are instinctual?
  • Radical doubt
    .
    I didn’t say you couldn’t disagree. I merely said that you couldn’t validly and justifiably disagree.
    Michael Ossipoff

    What makes you think you didn't understand your declaration of final arbiter? I did. I fully understand that you believe you are in the position of greater understanding. Fine. I disagree.

    If you want to argue about what is valid and what is true and all of those other arbitrary terms, there is a thread thrashing that out right now. Suffice to say, I don't recognize you as the final arbiter. That belief is your own.

    You called me Rich. I never called myself anything. Check your facts.
  • Instinct vs. Cultural Learning in Humans
    I would think this is the opposite of instinct. This is learned behavior,schopenhauer1

    Observe all of the actions that your body is doing all the time "automatically" such as the processes of eating, breathing, reacting,

    and thinking. They can't and shouldn't be ignored simply because they are "automatic".

    And this would be instinctual for sure.schopenhauer1

    Not at all. The learning process is exactly the same.
  • Instinct vs. Cultural Learning in Humans
    If one fully analyzes the entire range of behavior of humans one quickly comes to the conclusion that most everything we do is instinctual (I prefer to think of it as memory from the past). This would include every aspect associated with movement, emotions, feelings, biological processes, sensing, as well as the thinking process itself. All of this, habitual in nature, prerequisite for any new behavioral formation such as throwing a baseball or using chopsticks. That some of us may find learning to throw a baseball easier than others, is an interesting side observation which provides clues about the nature of instincts, habits, and their relationship to memory.

    As for animals or insects, I have no idea how they communicate but for sure they are learning and forming new habits also all the time. Bed bugs seem to be exceptionally good at this.
  • Radical doubt
    I merely meant that you can't validly, justifiably disagree with an if-then proposition based on a belief that its premise is false.Michael Ossipoff

    Of course I can.

    The falsity of an implication's premise doesn't make the proposition false.Michael Ossipoff

    IF there is disagreement with the premise THEN there will be disagreement with the conclusion (as there always is). One might as well forget about everything until there is concensus with the premise/stated belief. I would think this is pretty obvious.

    But, even if you don't like that standard definition, the falsity of an implication's premise certainly doesn't make the implication false.Michael Ossipoff

    Yes, when people agree, they will agree. It is not true or false, it is the nature of human beings. Agreement (consensus) is often restated as facts. Despite this, it remains a belief.

    You call yourself "Rich". That's a fact. Maybe "Rich" is really your first name. That, too, is a fact.Michael Ossipoff

    No one knows what Rich is. You can say something about it and I might agree, but suppose I'm a hacker and have nothing to do with the name Rich? All information is subject to ambiguity some more so than others. You form beliefs but it doesn't make it a fact.

    The problem with most analysis of the nature of things is that people are in need such a hurry to reach conclusions that they don't even pause for a second to consider alternatives that would undermined their conclusions. This is no doubt a product of an educational system that encourages the idea of "pat answers". That is why I stopped going to college courses. It trains students that there are facts that can be spoon fed by higher authorities. Actually those are the worst sources for information.
  • Scientific research takes notice of life and consciousness after death
    I don't understand what a holographic universe is, or what these waves of the correct frequency are. I am afraid that an explanation will be as over my head as the holographic universe is. I'm not knocking the idea -- I just have no idea what it means.Bitter Crank

    Do you understand how holograms are constructed and reconstructed?
  • Do we have the choice to think about whether we have a choice?
    If you are a determinist the answer is no since everything has been already determined by the Laws of Nature. If you are someone who understands that choice is fundamental to the creative process of life and evolution, then the answer is yes, which is why we come to philosophy forums to discuss the nature of choices we make.

    To believe everything is already determined by the Laws of Nature, one would have to come up with some theory of why the Laws of Nature would decide to create forums to discuss the nature of choice, a concept that would have to somehow pop out of the Laws of Nature.
  • Scientific research takes notice of life and consciousness after death
    I always look for "clues" from many perspectives.

    The first big one for me was the nature of inborn skills, which sometimes are enormously magnified in children with very special abilities (e.g. prodigies), but also evident in people with very special capabilities such as idiot savants. The standard scientific "explanation" is that well, it is a very complicated mix of neurons that trigger of all kinds of chemical reaction that in turn, presto, magic, becomes a special skill.

    My alternate explanation would be that skills are memory and memory is actually embedded in the holographic universe as wave patterns, and retrieved by transmission/reception waves of the correct frequency from the brain. This conforms to the latest research regarding the quantum holographic universe.

    Other evidence or clues pops up now and then such as NDE and the latest observations by medical teams in hospitals such as described in the article. From personal experience I know that conscious is distributed throughout the body (forget about this brain fixation by since), so there has to be some model of memory and perception that accounts for this. Stephen Robbins provides brilliant insights into this question in his Youtube videos which are based upon Bergson's metaphysics.
  • David Hume
    The more I observe this thread, the more I realize (empirically) how useless logic is. What is literally happening is that not-logical thinking it's being used to figure out whether the conclusions of deductions and inductions are reasonable. Very instructive.
  • Scientific research takes notice of life and consciousness after death
    I can be as certain that there is no survival of consciousness after death, as you may be that there is survival. We'll just have to disagree.Bitter Crank

    Did you even read the title?

    The purpose of the post was not to relate my my own ideas on the subject. The purpose was to reportb in the researcher's comments, Dr. Sam Parnia, director of critical care and resuscitation research at New York University Langone Medical Center:

    "I’m saying we have a consciousness that makes up who we are—our selves, thoughts, feelings, emotions—and that entity, it seems, does not become annihilated just because we've crossed the threshold of death; it appears to keep functioning and not dissipate.How long it is, we can’t say."
  • Suppose our brain isn't conscious?
    My view is that our brain has evolvedTime

    What precisely is "evolving"? Evolving implies that some consciousness exists that understands the concept of evolving, such as the Mind.

    Accordingly, our brain can be considered a radio, and our consciousness is nothing more than a radio frequency, which our brain can ‘tune into’ –Time

    The brain appears to be quite alive, but there is no evidence that all of consciousness is smooshed into it in some manner. In fact, consciousness appears to be decentralized. More likely, it is does manage communication (it to it's conscious) via the nervous system including most especially the sounded.

    In any case, it is tough separating mind from any part of the human body so I just view mind/matter as a continuum. Beyond this there are quantum scientists investigating the possibility that mind/matter is c embedded in a holographic type universe. Stephen Robbins presents one philosophical possibility in his videos available on Youtube? It helps to have have some background on Bergson though since Robbins' delivery is slow and methodical. Here is the first video in his series.


    https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A
  • David Hume
    Definitely! :) Yes I would seek to find some sort of compromise.Perplexed

    There is no compromise. Just one choice, one probabilistic (or random choice), no matter how small, destroys determinism. Compatibilism attempts to compromise but any reading of it yields a contortionist mess. Something like you can will want you want, but if you want what you will, you'll end up with wants but no will ... or some silliness like that.

    In any case, no compromise. However, since what you think is determined (if you are still a determinist at this reading), it should be of no mind to you. When the Laws of Nature get around to allowing you to believe in something else, they'll let you know. I hope you are happy with whatever decision that had been already made for you.
  • Radical doubt
    Where is the fact? It is simply a proposal (hence the proposition).Rich

    Because you say so? Suppose sometime disagrees?

    If you doubt that premise, that doesn't mean that you disagree with or challenge the if-then proposition.Michael Ossipoff

    I just did.

    Finding "facts" outside of philosophy class is actually quite difficult.
  • Radical doubt
    If all dogs are mammals, and all mammals are animals, then all dogs are animals.Michael Ossipoff

    Where is the fact? It is simply a proposal (hence the proposition). You said "If". Suppose someone doesn't buy into your 'If".

    You are confusing consensus on a proposal with some sort of an idea that you call a fact or truth.
  • The Philosophy of Hope
    5. Due to 3 and 4, the universe is evolving towards a state of complete harmony and absence of
    discord (i.e. perfection).

    To justify these premises will take a lot of argument, so I suggest that for the purposes of this thread it is just assumed that Universal Perfection is realistically possible.
    Justin1

    There lies the problem. All you have done is articulate a personal desire that it be such.

    What I observe is a Universe that is changing by learning. That is all.
  • David Hume
    As I have written elsewhere, the mathematics of General Relativity does not support either of these notions:

    1) the Earth moves around the sun or

    2) the ontology of space-time.

    Any such stance is purely metaphysical in nature and an unwarranted one at that.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/general-relativity-the-sun-revolves-around-the-earth.245334/page-2

    "Cleonis, you seem to also be confused on the purpose of the theory. Is Heliocentric system more convenient, and therefore, more useful? Absolutely. Does it give you any predictions you could not acquire in Geocentric system? Absolutely not. And when I map coordinates on Earth, is it more convenient to keep inertial frame of reference, or one that is fixed to rotating Earth. The later, of course. But does that mean that the Earth suddenly stopped rotating? No. Convenience of one model over the other does not imply any sort of physical truth. It's just that, a convenience. In order for one thing to be true and for another to be false, the two models must provide disagreement in predictions. Are there any disagreements in predictions? No. Then it is no more wrong to say that Earth is the center of the universe around which all else rotates, than it is to say that Earth rotates around the Sun.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/general-relativity-the-sun-revolves-around-the-earth.245334/page-3

    "The purpose of GR, as you put it, is to consolidate SR with newtonian gravitation, from what I've read. It's achievement is being a good physical theory with accurate predictions. In newtonian gravitation, you have mass acting on mass. I can't recall ever reading or hearing that there is any significant mass-space coupling in newtonian gravitation. You seem to be discussing the philosophy of GR rather than its physics. Whether you choose to beleive that there exists a curved 4-D entity called spacetime which couples to matter, or whether you believe spacetime is a convenient mathematical tool for GR is completely up to the individual phycisist."

    There are scientists who are completely reworking the theory of gravity based upon the notion of quantum entanglement and a holographic universe which will yield a mathematics that will be in approximate concordance with GR but with a completely new way of viewing gravity. One such scientist, Erik Verlinde, spoke at a symposium where he stated that he began looking at this new approach because he wasn't at all philosophical comfortable with the Big Bang Theory of the universe.
  • David Hume
    induction's seeming self-evidence is not enough to justify it when you consider why it seems to be self-evident.SophistiCat

    The problem is that everything is constantly changing. Induction is only approximated. There is no evidence of the unchanging nature of the universe and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Determinists are determined but have no evidence to support its preferences. And Hume was quite on target with his analysis of the psychological effect on induction. There are not only biases galore in all human activity, but in addition fundamental to quantum theory is the notion that the observer cannot be divorced from the measurement of the system.
  • Radical doubt
    As for myself, I just keep it real by observing patterns, understanding human nature, always working on sharpening my skills via "cross-training", and like any good detective, making sure all the pieces in the puzzle are fitting together. Philosophy is all about being a good detective whose working to solve the case. I like challenges that thoroughly test my capabilities and creative thinking possibilities. It takes time to develop the skills but it is never too early or late to start.
  • David Hume
    Again, intuition is merely defined as a process of decision making that is outside of our awareness.Magnus Anderson

    My intuition moments just happen. Something may trigger the moment of epiphany. Something some someone says. Maybe a passing scene. Maybe a dream. It just happens for unknown reasons. It springs out and things all of a sudden makes sense. I've had situations where everything didn't make sense and all of a sudden the mist clears and every piece of the puzzle becomes clear. That moment of inspiration is write undefinable for me. It is as did the deeper soul is speaking.
  • David Hume
    I think that inspiration is irrelevant to understanding how reasoning works.Magnus Anderson

    I'm actually talking about knowledge acquisition. I believe this is what Hume was also interested in.

    Intuition is not only poorly defined, it is impossible to define because it pops out of the experience of living. It just happens. However, the more one practices observation and pattern recognition, the more one is likely to have moments of inspiration because it is sharp observation skills that is the mother of inspiration. With such a process, one is merely traveling on the same path of knowledge forever. I guess one can rely on the inspiration of others
  • The Philosophy of Hope
    From the perspective of the philosophy of hope, Buddhism is largely a regressive force which encourages quietism and withdrawal from the world, thus impeding the achievement of UtopiaJustin1

    Not from what I have read and practiced. It simply suggests, based upon observations, that great desires lead to great sadness and that a better approach may be moderation (The Middle Path). Actually, there is lots of good insight here.
  • David Hume
    If we are agreeing, then great. However, I don't know where intuition/inspiration falls within the rules of logic. Also, pattern recognition is not simply generalization. Frequently it is a process of observing differences and similarities among many patterns and then intuitively combining these intuitively conceived newer patterns into an entirely new greater pattern that allows one to acquire an entirely new way of understanding something. Most breakthroughs in metaphysics and science happen this way though the poor metaphysician is often ignored because the insights are entirely his/her own.
  • The Philosophy of Hope
    Buddhism suggests that desire (hope) is the root of all suffering.
  • David Hume
    mass of observations will mean nothingMagnus Anderson

    Observations together with pattern recognition combined with inspiration/intuition that gives new meaning to these recognized patterns.

    A child builds a sandcastle.
    Every time the ocean waves come in, it destroys the castle. (observation and pattern recognition).
    Something must be done to avoid or redirect the water. (inspiration).

    This is how knowledge is acquired.
  • David Hume
    Whether or not a certain syllogism is "valid" is only relevant on graded tests.

    What is relevant is knowledge is acquired by a combination of personal observations, group consensus, and periodic moments of intuition and inspiration. Such knowledge can be used in a formal manner using some symbolic logic, but the root of knowledge is in observational pattern recognition of various sorts.
  • David Hume
    Is it even logically possible for full determinism to produce more than one outcome?Perplexed

    Nope. And such a point of view has no theory for variation in the universe. Quantum theory does.

    The only way determinism works is if the Laws of Nature assume all of the authority and possibilities of gods (God). It is absolutely the silliest metaphysical theory I've ever come across and more correctly should be classified as a religion.
  • David Hume
    Keep in touch then, because the Laws have me caught in this grip of non-believing, so if they happen to reveal something to you that might help, it would be much appreciated.
  • David Hume
    Are you suggesting that humans are able to act against the laws of cause and effect when the rest of the universe has to comply with it?charleton

    There is no such thing as the laws of cause and effect for the rest of the universe. I guess it is something determinists just make up for the heck of it. And why not?

    But then again, if there was this mystical Law that governed the universe (sounds remarkably similar to God), it would be kind of strange that they reveal the Truth about themselves to only a chosen few. Is there a special prayer that the Laws of Nature are particularly fond of that non-determinists can abide themselves of in order for the Truth to be revealed to them also?
  • David Hume
    This is not the case. Determinism is an explanation of choice which is completely lacking from those who propose free-will.charleton

    Are you suggesting that the Laws of Nature work in such a manner that they give the real scoop about the nature of choice is to only certain people (determinists) while the rest of us are given some delusional ideas of Choice? In other words, are the Laws of Nature playing favorites in revealing the truth?

    Anyway, I wasn't speaking of the nature of choice as revealed to determinists, I was speaking of REAL choice. The one that non-believers are forced to believe in by the Laws of Nature.
  • David Hume
    If the self is determined, from where does the power of choice arise?Perplexed

    The determinist position is that there is no choice. Everything is determined. (If you are not a determinist, just go on believing otherwise, because that too is determined).

    Thus, anything that a determinist says can be ignored (if you believe that you have the choice to ignore). Whatever a determinist tells you is meaningless, unless one believes that the Laws of Nature and the wave-particles that they govern have some kind of built-in mandate to reveal something about themselves.

    Maybe there is a God that forces the Laws of Nature to provide insight to those who aren't determinists - as a matter of playing fair?
  • How do we resolve this paradox in free speech?
    The issue is never racism, which is always prevalent in some form in any culture. The issue is the economic conditions that provide racism a platform to grow. Nazism and other similar forms of ideology were a result of economic conditions. Amazingly, the university I go to some times for classes refuses to go near this subject not will they touch the financing of racism pretending instead that it is sort of genetic aberration in some people.
  • Deflating the importance of idealism/materialism
    bringing back the question of Being.Erik

    As history repeats today.
  • Radical doubt
    I am thinking, therefore I am. — René Descartes

    There"truth" goes even deeper than that. With a careful reading of this statement one might observe that, I think therefore I am. Quite interesting but also probably a ticket to the burning at the stake in Decartes' time.
  • A Crash Course in Philosophy
    It is wonderful to hear of your recovery and how it added some new meaning too your life. One makes of Life as one's experiences may lead. My guess is that you have caught very long journey ahead of you. Good luck with your explorations into the nature of Life!
  • David Hume
    To understand how"knowledge" is acquired, one can analyze the bird which we call crow. Enough birds with similar visible attributes, such as the color black, are witnessed by multiple observers so that a species classification is formed. It is totally arbitrary.

    In time exceptions can be found, and depending upon certain arbitrary rules, a sub-species may be created or a whole new species within an arbitrary created genus may be created. And in time more exceptions will be observed and the process continued. The whole scientific process is arbitrary and approximations subject but to constant modifications depending upon the similarities and differences being observed.

    As one may expect, these observations, classifications, overall observations (can animals communicate in ways more "intelligent" than humans?) and conclusions, are highly susceptible to all kinds of biases.

    And from this rather eclectic accumulation of knowledge are we to find "truths" in logic, both deductive and inductive? In my observations, such a case is highly improbable. Logic, of any sort, is more or less a game for academia, most especially to imply am aura of superiority to certain disciplines, where none really exists. An average person is not only able to derive similar knowledge without resorting to logic, but in all probably will make more sense because it admits to the approximations and changeability associated with the world (universe) we live in. The better the observer the more like likely the approximation will be admitted to (there are no Laws).

    Hence, the answer to any syllogism it's always maybe - with a different feeling of likelihood depending upon experiences (memory). Memory (the observer) is always a participant in judgement - science or otherwise.
  • Questions for dualist
    Is the ocean many waves or are many waves the ocean? It is all the same.