| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 24 2010 00:44 Scorcher2k wrote: I just went on to read Searle and then everything surrounding consciousness. Lots of links to great papers here. http://consc.net/online/1/all#general Searle is a bit of an idiot :x | ||
|
catamorphist
United States297 Posts
On July 24 2010 11:15 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: Lol maji, always an interesting take on things. I'm still having a hard time believing that a particle would behave differently if it were collided with once, then you went back in time, and it were collided with again. If this is the case then the universe is still deterministic and my explanation was merely a simplification. Everything in my argument still holds. In a quantum system, the fundamental problem with this idea is that the current observable position and velocity of particles is not sufficient to represent the current quantum state; it's just a consequence of the state. The state itself consists of probability amplitudes for each particle, not positions and velocities. So even if somehow you obtained "perfect information" about the state at a point in time (which isn't possible, anyway) and you were able to revert the whole world back to that state and start again, the result would probably not be the same from your perspective. Sorry if this is unclear, I might not be explaining it very well, and anyway, it belongs more in a textbook than in a paragraph. I also don't understand it very well myself; I've studied the actual math very little. | ||
|
Maji
Australia82 Posts
On July 24 2010 12:52 catamorphist wrote: In a quantum system, the fundamental problem with this idea is that the current observable position and velocity of particles is not sufficient to represent the current quantum state; it's just a consequence of the state. The state itself consists of probability amplitudes for each particle, not positions and velocities. So even if somehow you obtained "perfect information" about the state at a point in time (which isn't possible, anyway) and you were able to revert the whole world back to that state and start again, the result would probably not be the same from your perspective. Sorry if this is unclear, I might not be explaining it very well, and anyway, it belongs more in a textbook than in a paragraph. I also don't understand it very well myself; I've studied the actual math very little. humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
What is the point of life ? What can bring you lasting happiness ? What are your most important values ? What is good and what is evil ? What is Wisdom ? Point of life is to live life. Nothing can bring you LASTING happiness, everything will make you angry at some point. Respect and Truth. Good is everything I hold dear to myself, values or people, evil is everything that threatens those. Wisdom is knowledge gained by personal experience. I think the good and evil question is probably the most interesting one. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote: humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time. Because gravity isn't a conjecture of physics. Are you ever going to make an actual argument? | ||
|
catamorphist
United States297 Posts
On July 24 2010 13:06 Maji wrote: humanitys asumption is the problem you presume physics is the same in all realms but it isnt hence to travel interdimensionally and across the density thresholds you have to be able to adjust your technology based on location, hence when humanity finally realizes that physics is a variable not a constant but that gravity is the only constant then you will unlock the doors which have remained closed all this time. OK, you convinced me. | ||
|
Maji
Australia82 Posts
On July 24 2010 13:56 kzn wrote: Because gravity isn't a conjecture of physics. Are you ever going to make an actual argument? Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness. Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Coagulation
United States9633 Posts
On July 24 2010 14:33 Maji wrote: Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness. Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe. User was banned for this post. sorry | ||
|
H
New Zealand6138 Posts
| ||
|
shammythefox
United Kingdom286 Posts
On July 23 2010 11:07 kzn wrote: You can't know anything via perception except that you have perceived X. You might be able to prove that, had we been present at the time of the big bang (or whatever) we would have perceived a big bang, but that doesn't get you any closer to proving what actually happened. Doesn't prove anything futile unless you insist on clinging to beliefs about an objective reality. A concept itself derived from perception. The idea that one cannot put too much faith in our tools is useful to a certain level, that level being when the tool is only apparent in one scenario, when the tool itself is the very manifestation of reality it ceases to become a perception and becomes the reality. Part of our understanding of gravity derived from galileo was described without the use of observation, simply thought, and a pristine understanding of logic. Now if you want to say that this thought was governed by the laws that rule the universe and these themselves are already skewed by this perception, then the original unperspected notion infact ceases to have meaning. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 24 2010 18:33 shammythefox wrote: A concept itself derived from perception. The idea that one cannot put too much faith in our tools is useful to a certain level, that level being when the tool is only apparent in one scenario, when the tool itself is the very manifestation of reality it ceases to become a perception and becomes the reality. Part of our understanding of gravity derived from galileo was described without the use of observation, simply thought, and a pristine understanding of logic. Now if you want to say that this thought was governed by the laws that rule the universe and these themselves are already skewed by this perception, then the original unperspected notion infact ceases to have meaning. Well yes the "original" before perception pretty much doesn't have meaning, as far as I'm concerned, because it is unknowable. | ||
|
shammythefox
United Kingdom286 Posts
On July 25 2010 06:17 kzn wrote: Well yes the "original" before perception pretty much doesn't have meaning, as far as I'm concerned, because it is unknowable. What i'm saying is not only does it not have meaning, in the fact that some laws of physics are derived without observation and thus directly from the universe, if perception does indeed skew these laws they must be skewed for the entire universe, and as this is the very object they govern the original was either a) impossible to be skewed or b) ceases to exist | ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote: Again, you attempted to explain energy as the function of how it works. I.E. kinetic, potential, chemical. Really it is all the same thing doing different things. You did not answer what it is. Your explanation that science should not be any less more credible even though it has not explained it yet because in the future it will explain it is not a stable ground to be in. It is the same as me saying "Even though you cannot prove God exists he does because you will find out when you die that he is there.". Other then that I am not trying to provide a definitive explanation for why existence is the way it is, I am merely trying to expose science for not being able to answer the underlying 'deeper' questions upon which it makes its assumptions. I'll explain again, in another way, so maybe you will understand. There is no such thing in the real world as energy. You can't point and say "Look, here's energy." in the same way you can point to a rock or anything observable. It's a theoretical concept, created by humans. Understand now? Which deeper questions? Sciences assumptions are tested everyday, and until they fail to represent the real world, they will keep being used. On July 17 2010 03:44 Epsilon8 wrote:Your explanation that science should not be any less more credible even though it has not explained it yet because in the future it will explain it is not a stable ground to be in. It is the same as me saying "Even though you cannot prove God exists he does because you will find out when you die that he is there.". No it is not the same. Religion doesn't have any credibility, or past sucesses to have a reputation worth any faith. Science does. All it's theories are constantly tested and put to pressure to see if they hold, and unlike religion, there is more than enough evidence that supports the argument that it is evolving. You seem to be bashing science, because that's the position you want to be, even though the arguments makes no sense. And you haven't defined reality yet. Cheers. | ||
|
treekiller
United States236 Posts
Many people hold four beliefs that form an inconsistent tetrad; that is not all can be true, but up to three can be true. 1) The human mind is a spiritual thing 2) The human body is a material thing 3) Mind and body interact 4) Spirit and matter do not interact Spiritual doesn't necessarily mean God or ghost, etc.; it means not physical or more than physical. I reject number 1). The physical brain is the mind and there is not need to resort to beliefs in the nonphysical to explain the mind-body interactions. We could also discuss other philosophical problems, such as theodicity, free will and ethics. I think that would be more interesting than the problems originally suggested. I think these problems have relevance to gaming. For example, if we do not have free will, what is the point of pretending to discuss strategy if our actions are already predetermined? | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
On July 25 2010 07:43 Duelist wrote: I'll explain again, in another way, so maybe you will understand. There is no such thing in the real world as energy. You can't point and say "Look, here's energy." in the same way you can point to a rock or anything observable. It's a theoretical concept, created by humans. Understand now? Which deeper questions? Sciences assumptions are tested everyday, and until they fail to represent the real world, they will keep being used. No it is not the same. Religion doesn't have any credibility, or past sucesses to have a reputation worth any faith. Science does. All it's theories are constantly tested and put to pressure to see if they hold, and unlike religion, there is more than enough evidence that supports the argument that it is evolving. You seem to be bashing science, because that's the position you want to be, even though the arguments makes no sense. And you haven't defined reality yet. Cheers. There are enough puzzles that exist in modern science that I believe it's quite valid to say that every aspect of the universe being explainable eventually is a question and not something you can just assume. It's a belief, the same as a belief that there's something outside the natural world and things are not explainable. We don't know that the supernatural doesn't have past successes, because it's outside what is knowable to us. Same as we don't know if science will always have future successes. The pure scientific world view is built on finding accurate predictions which will be true 100% of the time forever. That is faith, same as the faith leap to believe in something supernatural. Treating it like a quantum uncertainty/wave-particle duality, that's my stance still. That's our precedent for unobservable states that do have defined possibilities. | ||
|
Win.win
United States230 Posts
On July 25 2010 17:07 Jerubaal wrote: What I find most amusing is that the Cult of Science has no knowledge of its own history. They argue as if they have found the final answer when they can't even formulate a decent question. oh boy. go on then, what's the cult of science? | ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
On July 25 2010 17:57 ZapRoffo wrote: There are enough puzzles that exist in modern science that I believe it's quite valid to say that every aspect of the universe being explainable eventually is a question and not something you can just assume. It's a belief, the same as a belief that there's something outside the natural world and things are not explainable. I didn't assume. I said science, unlike other beliefs, have shown it evolves with time, and is directly tied with reality since it does accurate predictions on it. It's a belief, but a special one. Beliving in unicorns and that when you drop an apple it will go to the ground, is not the same. On July 25 2010 17:57 ZapRoffo wrote:We don't know that the supernatural doesn't have past successes, because it's outside what is knowable to us. Same as we don't know if science will always have future successes. The pure scientific world view is built on finding accurate predictions which will be true 100% of the time forever. That is faith, same as the faith leap to believe in something supernatural. Well that depends. What do you mean by supernatural? And i don't think the faith leap is the same, as i argued above. | ||
|
treekiller
United States236 Posts
It it true that both science and religion face uncertainty. Were they diverge is science seeks to find methods to quantify this uncertainty, make assumptions as simple and as self-apparent as possible when using deductive reasoning and to have a system for replication and minimizing errors when using inductive reasoning. So called "leap of faith" often denies and attempts to side-step this uncertainty. Both science and religion will hold beliefs of which no one can be certain. That is not where they converge; that is where they diverge. | ||
|
Hidden_MotiveS
Canada2562 Posts
On July 24 2010 14:33 Maji wrote: Gravity is the begining and the end of all things, all else is a expression create through gravity form through intelligent energy, question is what is designing the form answer is simply consciousness. Hence the physical laws you follow in physics are simply just ideas. So physics is varied between different realms of exsistance but is created in it construct through what is known to humanity as gravity but gravity is much more than humanity understand it and gravity is the key to entire universe. User was banned for this post. He's back isn't he? -_- | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
ByuN vs SHIN
Maru vs Krystianer
WardiTV Team League
Patches Events
BSL
GSL
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
WardiTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
