Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biocentrism - How life creates the universe
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 46 of 62 (568880)
07-18-2010 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by cavediver
07-18-2010 4:29 PM


cavediver writes:
Position and momentum as such don't exist until measured - they simply aren't "things" that "exist" - they are answers to questions that are asked.
Maybe "quantities" wasn't the best choice of words since it does imply measurement. Would "properties" be better?

I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I\'m back where I started.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by cavediver, posted 07-18-2010 4:29 PM cavediver has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 47 of 62 (568984)
07-19-2010 12:31 PM


Here is an article called Space, Time and Consciousness by John Smythies. It provides another take on the issue. The following is the conclusion to this paper.
quote:
Linde’s theory of consciousness suggests that, in a comprehensive physical
theory of the Universe, space-time, matter and consciousness will all become
ontologically equal partners in a single over-riding physical reality in a multidimensional
hyperspace. Linde himself does not discuss what the nature of consciousness
might be other than its independent ontology. Nor does he comment
on what might be the nature of the relations between a consciousness and its
brain. However, some of the details of this hypothesis have been filled in by the
people quoted such as Price, Broad, Russell and myself. My own contribution to
this theory is to present the case that a consciousness may have its own space—
time system and its own system of ontologically independent and spatiotemporally
organized events (sensations and images) that have as much right to be
called ‘material’ as do protons and electrons. Price (1953) and I also have suggested
that the relations between a consciousness and its brain are causal.
So the new formulation of reality might consist of the following ontologically
equal partners (A) physical space-time (10 or more dimensions) containing
physical matter (protons, electrons, etc.); (B) phenomenal space (3 more dimensions
of a parallel universe) containing mind stuff (sensations and images); and
(C) real time (time 2). A and B are in relative motion along the time 1 axis in
time 2. Their contents are in causal relations via the brain. The psychological
‘now’ of time marks the point of contact of the two systems.

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 07-19-2010 12:34 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 49 by cavediver, posted 07-19-2010 2:53 PM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 62 (568985)
07-19-2010 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by GDR
07-19-2010 12:31 PM


still philosophy.
Ontology is still philosophy, not science.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 07-19-2010 12:31 PM GDR has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 49 of 62 (568993)
07-19-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by GDR
07-19-2010 12:31 PM


Here is an article called Space, Time and Consciousness by John Smythies. It provides another take on the issue.
Linde is a good physicist though he may be over-extending in his metaphysical ideas. But this guy is just a loon - it is abundantly clear that he has no clue of the physics he is butchering. I would ignore anything he writes and stick to those who actually have some grounding in the basics before they attempt to scale the difficult stuff (Penrose, Linde, etc)
When physicists start encroaching on philosophy and metaphysics, take anything they say (me especially) with a large grain of salt. But when philosophers and neuroscientists start talking fundemental physics, probably best to just ignore them completely...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 07-19-2010 12:31 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 07-20-2010 12:42 AM cavediver has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 50 of 62 (569058)
07-20-2010 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by cavediver
07-19-2010 2:53 PM


Thanks for the tip. It is difficult for someone with no background in physics to separate the wheat from the chaff. This was the book that got me started thinking about this.
Quantum Enigma
Both authors are physics professors so hopefully they are somewhat on track.
Thanks again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by cavediver, posted 07-19-2010 2:53 PM cavediver has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 51 of 62 (569194)
07-20-2010 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by AZPaul3
07-18-2010 12:41 PM


Re: Philosobabble.
AZPaul3 writes:
This universe cannot be said to exist without my personal observance. I, AZPaul3, am the center of the universe. Actually, the bridge of my nose is the center since no matter which direction I look the measure of distance as far out as it is possible to see is exactly the same. From the philosopher's own handbook, I cannot say the universe existed before I, personally, was here to observe it. Further, then, this universe will end with my end of observation upon my passing.
Actually I think that this is a great point and I've wondered the same thing myself. (My wife tells me that I certainly exist in my own universe. )
In a lot of ways I think that makes more sense of things considering what relativity tells us about time. Once again I don't have answers but that is certainly a good thought raising great questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AZPaul3, posted 07-18-2010 12:41 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by AZPaul3, posted 07-21-2010 10:53 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 52 of 62 (569195)
07-20-2010 7:30 PM


I recently read a book by a Jewish physicist named Gerald Shroeder. The book is entitled . Obviously the book has religious overtones but I think that he raises interesting questions that are not part of the religiosity of the book. He does have 2 PHD’s from MIT, one in physics and one in earth sciences.
He writes the following:
quote:
The puzzle of the mind-brain interface is not in the recording and biochemical storage of the incoming sensory data. That is brain work. Specific regions of the brain are well known to be devoted to the processing of speech and vision. The paths of the incoming data have been largely identified. The puzzle is in the replay. There is no hint in the brain of how you hear or see what you have heard or seen. There is no sound in your brain. Put a stethoscope anywhere in the brain and all that is heard is the gurgling of the blood as it moves through the vessels. No voices. No music. But I hear voices and music. But where is unknown.
The identical biochemical reactions that in one part of the brain store inputs related to the sounds we hear, in another location of the brain record the sights we see. But it is all chemistry and, even more perplexing, it’s all the same chemistry. And yet from this chemistry emerge the immeasurably different sensations of sound and sight. But what are they? The pat answer is that we perceive these chemical reactions as sound and sight. Obviously that is how we perceive the chemistry. The location of that perception is the puzzle.
I found this very interesting and I think it plays into the relationship between consciousness and physicality but once again I’m not at all sure just how.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2010 7:41 PM GDR has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 62 (569196)
07-20-2010 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by GDR
07-20-2010 7:30 PM


Let's say that I wanted to build or design a brain that could talk to itself. That is, it could experience the "inner monologue", that practice we frequently do where we hear our own speech inside our minds without actually engaging in the physical act of speech.
Let's further say that this brain already had discrete areas for both the production of language-based speech, and for the interpretation of language-based speech as heard from others.
Couldn't I design such a brain such that the areas for speech generation and speech interpretation could be voluntarily connected? Wouldn't that generate the sensation of hearing your own voice in your mind, even though you weren't actually speaking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by GDR, posted 07-20-2010 7:30 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by GDR, posted 07-21-2010 11:06 AM crashfrog has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 54 of 62 (569305)
07-21-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by GDR
07-20-2010 7:09 PM


Re: Philosobabble.
In a lot of ways I think that makes more sense of things considering what relativity tells us about time.
However, if you read the rest of my message, you will see where I conclude that this idea is false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by GDR, posted 07-20-2010 7:09 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 07-21-2010 11:02 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 55 of 62 (569309)
07-21-2010 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by AZPaul3
07-21-2010 10:53 AM


Re: Philosobabble.
I understood that, but I was just suggesting that maybe you're wrong about being wrong.
I agree however, it is just far out conjecture. I just found the thought interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by AZPaul3, posted 07-21-2010 10:53 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 56 of 62 (569313)
07-21-2010 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
07-20-2010 7:41 PM


crashfrog writes:
Couldn't I design such a brain such that the areas for speech generation and speech interpretation could be voluntarily connected? Wouldn't that generate the sensation of hearing your own voice in your mind, even though you weren't actually speaking?
I guess the point would be that you hear the speech in your head but somebody with a stethoscope up to your head wouldn't hear it. You don't have a speaker somewhere in your head. As he says: where is the playback?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2010 7:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 9:04 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 07-21-2010 11:49 PM GDR has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 62 (569458)
07-21-2010 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by GDR
07-21-2010 11:06 AM


I guess the point would be that you hear the speech in your head but somebody with a stethoscope up to your head wouldn't hear it.
Why would they?
As he says: where is the playback?
That's like asking "where do the tiny men inside my TV go when I turn it off?" What is this guy, a child? A Flintstone? How idiotic. "I don't hear the thoughts in other people's heads; therefore souls."
I mean come the fuck on!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by GDR, posted 07-21-2010 11:06 AM GDR has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 58 of 62 (569505)
07-21-2010 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by GDR
07-21-2010 11:06 AM


I guess the point would be that you hear the speech in your head but somebody with a stethoscope up to your head wouldn't hear it. You don't have a speaker somewhere in your head. As he says: where is the playback?
The playback is still in your head.
Your brain does not "hear" the sounds coming into your ears.
The sound enters your ears and vibrates cilia. The cilia are connected to cells that, when sensing the vibration, send an electrical impulse through the auditory nerves to the region of the brain that is wired and chemically composed to interpret those electrical signals. It is this cascade of events the we term as "hearing".
When I was in Grad School I shared an office with another Grad Assistant. His visual systems worked just fine as he could see the colors and shapes. But there was a "cross wiring" in his brain that also sent those visual signals to the auditory portion of his brain. He would "hear" colors and shapes. That was his normal reality.
These types of things neither evidence nor deny the existence of a soul. You need to look elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by GDR, posted 07-21-2010 11:06 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by GDR, posted 07-22-2010 12:28 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 59 of 62 (569508)
07-22-2010 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by AZPaul3
07-21-2010 11:49 PM


AZPaul3 writes:
When I was in Grad School I shared an office with another Grad Assistant. His visual systems worked just fine as he could see the colors and shapes. But there was a "cross wiring" in his brain that also sent those visual signals to the auditory portion of his brain. He would "hear" colors and shapes. That was his normal reality.
Interesting. Just the same the whole thing seems to me that in a sense we are a computer with no monitor attached. It seemed to me that he had a good point.
AZPaul3 writes:
These types of things neither evidence nor deny the existence of a soul. You need to look elsewhere.
I completely agree with that. I wasn't trying to make any theological point with that quote or with this thread. The last quote just happened to come from a book that certainly had a lot of Jewish apologetics in it, but all of the other quotes were from strictly secular books. I just thought that possibly the quote I used played into the idea of consciousness and how it relates to our experience of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 07-21-2010 11:49 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-23-2010 10:16 PM GDR has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 60 of 62 (569820)
07-23-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by GDR
07-22-2010 12:28 AM


GDR writes:
AZPaul3 writes:
When I was in Grad School I shared an office with another Grad Assistant. His visual systems worked just fine as he could see the colors and shapes. But there was a "cross wiring" in his brain that also sent those visual signals to the auditory portion of his brain. He would "hear" colors and shapes. That was his normal reality.
Interesting. Just the same the whole thing seems to me that in a sense we are a computer with no monitor attached. It seemed to me that he had a good point.
Well, since computers are reverse engineered biological brains created by human beings, wouldn't that make sense? There is no mystery here. Most of our inventions and technilogical developments have some basis in things that already exist in nature.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by GDR, posted 07-22-2010 12:28 AM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2010 10:45 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024