The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
Oh.ZWord said:
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
There's something missing from this thread...
...there's a hole that needs philling...
...there's a hole that needs philling...
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
He makes some fucking great tiles though.888 said:
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
Believe me, this is one hole that's probably best left empty for the moment!ZWord said:Sounds great, where?
FridgeMagnet said:
Stuart Hameroff, however, is worryingly vague about where he's coming from... and it certainly seems (on merely literary-criticism grounds, to be sure) that Penrose in his determination to find something "non-computational" has been sucked into Hameroff's agenda, whatever he is.
@888: no, you're right, no-one is, but you misread me. Penrose is brilliant at certain parts of maths, and if he would just leave the mind alone would have something very interesting to contribute to quantum loop gravity.
In case anyone was wondering, I will be back, but I have a little trip or two to take this weekend. Try not to derail the thread too much, I have got this all sorted from here on in. First we'll return to the question of whether financial value is an idea or a spirit, and I'll be pointing ot *four* characteristics that would seem to differentiate it from other ideas:
1. Its power, or efficacious force. Value is all-powerful and rules the entire world, it has even attained the power to *reproduce.* To all intents and purposes, value is alive.
2. Its nature, or essence: what it is. It is human life confronting us in alien and hostile form.
3. Its malignity. Financial value seems, historically, to have come into being for the express purpose of leading the human race into sin and destruction.
4. It ability to take material form as and when required.
I will suggest that these are true of no other idea (save, perhaps, one--of which more later). I will therefore infer that financial value cannot accurately be designated as an "idea" at all. Please raise any defence of the notion that value is an "idea" at this stage, since we will be unable to return to it later on.
1. Its power, or efficacious force. Value is all-powerful and rules the entire world, it has even attained the power to *reproduce.* To all intents and purposes, value is alive.
2. Its nature, or essence: what it is. It is human life confronting us in alien and hostile form.
3. Its malignity. Financial value seems, historically, to have come into being for the express purpose of leading the human race into sin and destruction.
4. It ability to take material form as and when required.
I will suggest that these are true of no other idea (save, perhaps, one--of which more later). I will therefore infer that financial value cannot accurately be designated as an "idea" at all. Please raise any defence of the notion that value is an "idea" at this stage, since we will be unable to return to it later on.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Do we have any other choices than idea or spirit? I don't think either of those words are terribly useful because of the historical garbage encrusted on them.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
So does this mean you are no *closer* to proving the existence of *God*?
Does your answer mean you have nothing to say about any of the four points you just quoted? Do you agree or disagree with them?
I was thinking, also, hmm, Penrose is very brilliant within his field, but as I don't want to believe that consciousness can play any causal role in the universe, except of course, when I think and make decisions, I'll say he's barking. At least that seems like a fair summary of what people have to say about Penrose. Or perhaps it should be. -I don't understand his argument, but I know he's wrong.- .
But do any of you stop to consider just how weird and inconsistent your viewpoint is? Just try in real life, for even a minute, to tell yourself, and really believe that your "ego" is a functional illusion, and your sense of choosing your behaviour, or controlling your sensations, is not real, and can you believe it at all?. And yet, when a large number of brilliant physicists tell you that it really appears that consciousness affects reality at a distance, and that the underlying stuff of reality seems to be able to alter itself in response to consciousness, you say, well it sounds barking to me. Is it consistent? Gurrier seems to be the most consistent, when, on another thread, he actually goes to the length of saying that consciousness is an illusion. It leads me to wonder, when Gurrier describes consciousness as purely functional, whether in fact in his own case it's true. Maybe Gurrier is actually not conscious, -seems like the most plausible explanation of how his ideas can make sense to him- Have you ever listened to piece of music and wept?
How ingenious the individual can be at finding reasons to believe in its idols, or to escape the responsibility of being a spirit.
And I think none of you seem to have really considered the significance of the title of Penrose's book. "The Emperor's new mind." Think about it, po the Emperor's new clothes, po Star Wars, and you might get a new idea of his meaning.
I was thinking, also, hmm, Penrose is very brilliant within his field, but as I don't want to believe that consciousness can play any causal role in the universe, except of course, when I think and make decisions, I'll say he's barking. At least that seems like a fair summary of what people have to say about Penrose. Or perhaps it should be. -I don't understand his argument, but I know he's wrong.- .
But do any of you stop to consider just how weird and inconsistent your viewpoint is? Just try in real life, for even a minute, to tell yourself, and really believe that your "ego" is a functional illusion, and your sense of choosing your behaviour, or controlling your sensations, is not real, and can you believe it at all?. And yet, when a large number of brilliant physicists tell you that it really appears that consciousness affects reality at a distance, and that the underlying stuff of reality seems to be able to alter itself in response to consciousness, you say, well it sounds barking to me. Is it consistent? Gurrier seems to be the most consistent, when, on another thread, he actually goes to the length of saying that consciousness is an illusion. It leads me to wonder, when Gurrier describes consciousness as purely functional, whether in fact in his own case it's true. Maybe Gurrier is actually not conscious, -seems like the most plausible explanation of how his ideas can make sense to him- Have you ever listened to piece of music and wept?
How ingenious the individual can be at finding reasons to believe in its idols, or to escape the responsibility of being a spirit.
And I think none of you seem to have really considered the significance of the title of Penrose's book. "The Emperor's new mind." Think about it, po the Emperor's new clothes, po Star Wars, and you might get a new idea of his meaning.
In Bloom said:
No, ? so what was your consciousness doing when it thought up, typed and posted your post?
The point about the two-slit experiment that you seem to have failed to grasp, is that, the nature of the light changes before it enters the eye, not afterwards. We observe the nature of the light, as waves through two slits, an as particles through one slit, by looking at the pattern it makes on a screen. It is therefore, not the fact of the light interacting with our eyes at the point of entry to our eyes that changes the nature of the light. The light changed before it hit the screen, depending on whether you had one or two slits for it to pass through.
It is the interaction with the eye/brain/spirit that changes the nature of the light, the magical part is that it does it at a distance.
Purdie
there are no stars, only suns
Idea or construct?Bernie Gunther said:
They are both created
One in the individual's mind.
The other in the collective mind of society
Spirit to me has religious connotations to start with. Which is why i'm having trouble to stick on subject. I find your ignorance on certain levels quite disturbing.phildwyer said:
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
The point about the two-slit experiment is that it shows how light can be simultaneously be described as both particle and wave. The nature of light doesn't change because of the slit, it's because of the nature of light that it behaves the way it does in such a situation.ZWord said:
And I think you misunderstand the meaning of an interaction for the purpose of measurement. The eye is a passive sensor, and does not change the nature of anything it perceives. What changes the properties of an object being measured is the interaction of it with the electromagnetic radiation which is being used to measure it; it is the EM radiation which the eye receives (either as light, directly, or more likely as an amplified signal from a measuring instrument, as such effects on properties of measured objects are only significant when the object is very small).
Therefore the eye is not affecting reality at a distance, and therefore the effect can't be magical, because it doesn't exist.
The appearance of an interference pattern on a screen behind two slits, showing that light is waves, but of a sharp line on a screen behind one slit showing that it is particles, does not depend on effects from measuring instruments used to measure it. The effect can be observed by you performing the experiment at home with a piece of card, a light, and a wall. It should be obvious, that these simple objects should not be capable of changing the nature of light. Similar effects are observed all the time in everyday reality.
I think you should say, -in classical physics, the eye-brain is thought to be a passive sensor.- It's not a proved point, it's the subject under discussion.
In a way, I agree that -
"it shows how light can be simultaneously be described as both particle and wave. The nature of light doesn't change because of the slit, it's because of the nature of light that it behaves the way it does in such a situation."
E.g. it is neither waves nor particles. It is something else, that manifests in a wave like way in one situation and a particle like way in another situation. But then what is its nature? The experimental results show that it certainly appears to be waves sometimes and particles at other times, even though it can change its nature in the blink of an eye or the shutting of a slit. Some other nature it must have to make this possible, but it doesn't seem possible to describe such a nature without accepting that the idea of locality, - the idea that this a universe of *things* with distinct locations in space and time, is a human illusion created by the kind of perceptual organs and brains we have.
The problem for those with a mundane view of reality, is that for the light to do this, then you would imagine it has to start its manifestation at the moment it leaves its source of light. Waves and particles really are very different things, and something that can appear to be both must be a remarkable spirit/energy, whatever. It really seems from the experimental results, (in sophisticated experiments rather than home demos) that when it passes through one slit, it "really is" photons. And yet with two slits, it really is waves, and it's difficult to see how this can be so, for to act as a wave, it has to start off manifesting as a wave the moment it leaves the light source, and yet how could it know whether it would encounter one or two slits, unless it were intelligent? or unless it were one substance?
You can repeat and repeat that there is nothing mysterious about it, and it's all totally commonplace and material, but geniuses and brilliant physicists have found it deeply mysterious. If you are correct that there's nothing weird about it, then why does Richard Feynman describe it as "the central mystery." ? (see the link at the beginning of the wave particle duality thread)
It's difficult to know what you really think. I know several years ago, I failed to grasp the significance of wave-particle duality though it was explained to me repeatedly by a physicist friend at university. I made myself think I understood, when actually I didn't. Maybe you're doing something similar. Maybe not.
I think you should say, -in classical physics, the eye-brain is thought to be a passive sensor.- It's not a proved point, it's the subject under discussion.
In a way, I agree that -
"it shows how light can be simultaneously be described as both particle and wave. The nature of light doesn't change because of the slit, it's because of the nature of light that it behaves the way it does in such a situation."
E.g. it is neither waves nor particles. It is something else, that manifests in a wave like way in one situation and a particle like way in another situation. But then what is its nature? The experimental results show that it certainly appears to be waves sometimes and particles at other times, even though it can change its nature in the blink of an eye or the shutting of a slit. Some other nature it must have to make this possible, but it doesn't seem possible to describe such a nature without accepting that the idea of locality, - the idea that this a universe of *things* with distinct locations in space and time, is a human illusion created by the kind of perceptual organs and brains we have.
The problem for those with a mundane view of reality, is that for the light to do this, then you would imagine it has to start its manifestation at the moment it leaves its source of light. Waves and particles really are very different things, and something that can appear to be both must be a remarkable spirit/energy, whatever. It really seems from the experimental results, (in sophisticated experiments rather than home demos) that when it passes through one slit, it "really is" photons. And yet with two slits, it really is waves, and it's difficult to see how this can be so, for to act as a wave, it has to start off manifesting as a wave the moment it leaves the light source, and yet how could it know whether it would encounter one or two slits, unless it were intelligent? or unless it were one substance?
You can repeat and repeat that there is nothing mysterious about it, and it's all totally commonplace and material, but geniuses and brilliant physicists have found it deeply mysterious. If you are correct that there's nothing weird about it, then why does Richard Feynman describe it as "the central mystery." ? (see the link at the beginning of the wave particle duality thread)
It's difficult to know what you really think. I know several years ago, I failed to grasp the significance of wave-particle duality though it was explained to me repeatedly by a physicist friend at university. I made myself think I understood, when actually I didn't. Maybe you're doing something similar. Maybe not.
I don't think that anyone has called Penrose barking and the man himself is quite open about the highly speculative nature and the lack of any evidence to back up his musings about consciousness.ZWord said:
How perceptive. I am nothing more than an experimental computer program involved in a massive Turing test and you've just made me failZWord said:
. I have never before met the verb 'po'. How should I po things?
In Bloom said:That's not a coherent question, there is no distinction between me and my "consciousness", its just something going on inside my skull. BFD
.
So you're not capable of changing reality at all, then? How unfortunate for you.
In Bloom said:
The experimental results suggest otherwise, unless you take a radically different view of reality from the human one. Depends what you mean by nature vs appearance.
- Status
Similar threads
