Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,164 Year: 5,421/9,624 Month: 446/323 Week: 86/204 Day: 2/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation?
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 58 of 160 (537984)
12-02-2009 12:09 PM


Is thought materialistic?
Page Not Found : NPR
I am continually amazed at the discoveries being made in science. Regardless if one is a dualist or monist it is compelling, at least to me, that something that is generated in the mind can affect the physical world.
Edited by 1.61803, : grammer

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Son, posted 12-02-2009 1:34 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 65 by lyx2no, posted 12-02-2009 2:54 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 66 of 160 (538008)
12-02-2009 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Son
12-02-2009 1:34 PM


Re: Is thought materialistic?
quote:
I don't quite understand what you mean by that, the mind always affects the physical world, otherwise we wouldn't be able to move at all.
I am not sure what I meant either. Except that the mind is something non physical. Thought is something non physical. Yet able to influence and manifest into our physical reality. Kinda like what some people believe God does. (If one where to believe in such things.) When you get right down to the nitty-gritty what is really "material" what is really "energy" other than something like a mind manifesting conciousness. But I digress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Son, posted 12-02-2009 1:34 PM Son has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 67 of 160 (538012)
12-02-2009 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by lyx2no
12-02-2009 2:54 PM


Re: You Need to Watch More TV
Hi Lyx2NO,
quote:
The arm is not being move by thought. It is being signaled to move by a small, measurable electric current that we can duplicate using a watch battery and a resistor. If he were moving it by thought the tips his first two fingers would be resting on the outside corners of his eye brows and he'd be peering out from underneath them.
Can you have movement without that electric current? Yes, I can manipulate your arm for you. But can you have a thought without a mind? No. I can not think for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by lyx2no, posted 12-02-2009 2:54 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by lyx2no, posted 12-02-2009 5:43 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 80 of 160 (538110)
12-03-2009 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by lyx2no
12-02-2009 5:43 PM


Re: You Need to Watch More TV
Hello,
The link I provided in the post you responded to shows a amputee manipulating a mechanical hand not connected to his body, with his thoughts. psycokinisis or what ever one cares to call it, is still a example of non-material effecting the material world. If thoughts (which are non-material) can effect our physical reality, then this opens up a whole can of worms. I realize one need not invoke the spirit world as a explaination. However simply dismissing something as electrical impulses isn't the answer either. Where did these impulses propagate from, how did the information go from a thought to a machine hand not connected to a body? This to me is amazing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by lyx2no, posted 12-02-2009 5:43 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 12-03-2009 6:13 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 84 by lyx2no, posted 12-03-2009 7:05 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 82 of 160 (538112)
12-03-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Teapots&unicorns
12-03-2009 6:13 PM


Re: You Need to Watch More TV
Hi Teapot,
If you want to advocate a non-materialistic explanation, then how does your theory work? What 'impulse' does your psychokinesis tap into? Is it supported empirically?
The machine hand is NOT connected to the brain. Thats why its freaky. I have no evidence of "psyco kinisis" perhaps spooky action at a distance, some sort of quantum entanglement. All I know is the stuff Buddhist and Hindus been saying for millennium like separateness is an illusion, and "There is no spoon is bearing out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 12-03-2009 6:13 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 12-03-2009 6:49 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 94 of 160 (538197)
12-04-2009 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wounded King
12-03-2009 6:49 PM


Re: You Need to learn to read
Greetings Wounded King, thanks for the sarcastic slapdown.
This is arguably true technically. But your whole argument based on this news piece is a fantasy of nonsensical make-believe.
I happen to enjoy fantasy and make believe. My only general comment was how interesting the news article was. How amazing it was that a man can manipulate a mechanical hand by thought. The fact that it is electro-magnetic neuropathway does not make it any less wondrous, at least to me, His thoughts are controlling the movement. The wireless signal from satellites transmits information to computers and devices with out being connected. IR can control TVs, but this is a thought generated in the brain from a mind controling a machine hand. I realize there are many who see the Human body as nothing more than a collection of organic materials and nuero tissue that has become sentient. I on the other hand am interested in how the non physical can influence the physical. And I thought this was an example. Sorry for offending your superior intellectual sensibilities. I am still interested in learning what is generating the thought. Where does this spark originate? guess what. Its a mystery for now, and since it is still wonderous.
Edited by 1.61803, : redundant

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 12-03-2009 6:49 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-04-2009 1:04 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 1:08 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 100 of 160 (538257)
12-04-2009 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by New Cat's Eye
12-04-2009 1:04 PM


Re: You Need to learn to read
Hi Catholic Scientist,
If thoughts are simply a series of neurons firing, where are they non-material?
Where are the thoughts which are a series of nuerons firing getting the marching orders from? Everything that exists is manifested from energy. Energy of which mankind has yet been able to explain. Energy that can be both material and inmaterial. At what point do quantum waves manifest physical reality? At what point do quarks or strange charms or any other massless particle become material? I realize that simply saying goddit is not that answer.
But pretending the question is irrelvant does not keep me from wondering nevertheless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-04-2009 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by lyx2no, posted 12-04-2009 10:41 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 141 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-10-2009 1:50 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(1)
Message 101 of 160 (538260)
12-04-2009 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Straggler
12-04-2009 1:08 PM


Re: Wonderous Ignorance?
Hi Straggler,
Sounds like "somethingsupernaturalofthegaps" to me. And there is nothing wonderous about ignorance.
I would rather be ignorant in wonder than
certain of my nihlism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Straggler, posted 12-04-2009 1:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Straggler, posted 12-07-2009 2:07 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 107 of 160 (538293)
12-05-2009 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by lyx2no
12-04-2009 10:41 PM


Re: Waiting for the Book on Tape
Hi Lyx2NO, gobbledgoop was not meant to pretend confusion as profundity. There is no confusion in wondering about something. Not knowing a answer and and wondering about it is what drives humanity to discovery in my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by lyx2no, posted 12-04-2009 10:41 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by lyx2no, posted 12-05-2009 9:35 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 109 of 160 (538322)
12-05-2009 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by lyx2no
12-05-2009 9:35 AM


Re: Waiting for the Book on Tape
The child who ties her shoes is the one who dares wonder if she can. Half the battle of application is the courage to think one can achieve. rhetoric betraying a misconception that material equals mass and volume. How is this a misconception? Granted the physics that makes up our reality can be counter intuitive. Why would you have a problem with someone thinking mass and volume can describe material? And why would you want to lable someones post as gobbledgoop? When the questions are legitimate and cogent and honest and reasonable. Whats up with that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by lyx2no, posted 12-05-2009 9:35 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by lyx2no, posted 12-05-2009 7:35 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 111 of 160 (538339)
12-05-2009 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by lyx2no
12-05-2009 7:35 PM


Re: Clarity
If I am guilty of invoking gobbledgoop,
I apologize, but it is not intentional.
There has been nothing in any of my post that were unreasonable imo.
I simply stated that it is wonderous how a man without arms can move a machine hand with his thoughts. If I said what I really wanted to say like....it is miraculous I fear your coffee would blow through your nose. There are certain words that tend to flare the nostrils, words like wonderous, curious, supernatural, spiritual, etc..
They are just words, ambiguous amorphose abiguity, or gobbledgoop.
Words that can invoke wiggle room or fudge factors to otherwise sober discussions. Guilty as charged. For my penance I will say a prayer to the LHC. Peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by lyx2no, posted 12-05-2009 7:35 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by lyx2no, posted 12-06-2009 1:27 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 113 of 160 (538392)
12-06-2009 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by lyx2no
12-06-2009 1:27 AM


Re: At What Point Should We Look for Wondrous.
Hello lyxNO,
say what you really want to say that we might stop beating around the bush. But could you include in what you really want to say something about when a non-materialistic explanation ever explained anything? We can work on that.
I suppose I should ask what would be an example of non material. Perhaps the only thing that is non material would be something smaller than plankes length. Or something that has no mass, something not composed of matter. Or perhaps something that can not be measured.
Flageston was once an example of the nonmaterialistic explanation of the material. Then there were those who suggested ether may be the reason light can propagate as a wave.
I think the best example of a nonmaterialistic explanation of the material is the fundamental forces:
Gravitational,electromagnetic,nuclear.
I realize the electromagnetic and nuclear have particles associated with them, but the gravaton is still not confirmed.
So there ya have it. non material forces acting on matter to make stuff happen. I guess one could ask from whence these forces came.
At what point should we look for the wondrous would be just that I wonder where the forces that manifest our cosmos came from?
Then there is the mind, consciousness, thought. I suppose a thought could be likened to a boson of consciousness. The particle of consciousness. The brain the medium.
How does the non material consciousness affect the material. What force can explain that? EM explains the neurons transmission, but where does this cascade begin? If one where to describe the mind as non material then it would follow that the mind could be an example of a nonmaterialistic explanation for consciousness.
Don’t tell me, let me guess...more gobbled goop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by lyx2no, posted 12-06-2009 1:27 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2009 11:20 AM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 117 by lyx2no, posted 12-06-2009 1:03 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 115 of 160 (538399)
12-06-2009 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Modulous
12-06-2009 11:20 AM


Re: At What Point Should We Look for Wondrous.
Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical.
Well that is the catch all statement. Are dimensions physical? Particle theorist postulate that the most fundamental thing that can be is a string.
So what is the string?
Reality is quantized according to quantum mechanics. So when electrons move between energy states they do so by what is know as a quantum leap. Where are they going? Leaping to where to reappear.
Described a probabilities and waves......sounds very non physical to me. All this going on within every googleplex of a second to what end.
Schrdinger’s Cat smeared out into a amalgamation of possibilities.
I am no scientist. But it seems at least to me that the someone who thinks something can exist from nothing is no more ridiculous than someone who thinks it cant. In regards to the posted definition of Physicals I concede there is no free lunch in the universe
Edited by 1.61803, : spelling
Edited by 1.61803, : add quotebox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2009 11:20 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2009 12:29 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 118 of 160 (538411)
12-06-2009 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by lyx2no
12-06-2009 1:03 PM


Re: Magic's Just Another Word for Something Else to Know*
Hi lyx2n0, I do not believe in magic other than it's ability to confound. However if someone could levitate a object with his mind I would not think magic but some unknown force this person can tap into. Dr. Dean Radin research, Top Gun pilots where tested to try and find out why they have an "edge". The were hooked up with sensors on they're head and figertips. A series of randomly selected images shown on screen. Some pleasant images, some disturbing. The pilots where showing vitals signs consistent with the disturbing images milliseconds prior to the random image being displayed. Alluding to them obtaining knowledge prior to events.
Are they tapping into the future milliseconds before the average person can? Is this why they can make those split second decisions in the cockpit that always seem to be the right choice? Is this perhaps a form of ESP? It is intriguing regardless. Not magic, just unexplained phenomenon with rational explanations.
Another weird one is Masaru Emoto's work
DEFINE_ME
psuedo science, probably. But still intriguing.
Edited by 1.61803, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by lyx2no, posted 12-06-2009 1:03 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by lyx2no, posted 12-06-2009 4:01 PM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 123 by lyx2no, posted 12-07-2009 3:18 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1614 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 119 of 160 (538418)
12-06-2009 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Modulous
12-06-2009 12:29 PM


Re: At What Point Should We Look for Wondrous.
Hello Modulous,
According to a physicalist, if you created an identical universe that shared all the same physical properties as this one - the universes would be completely identical. A non-physicalist might argue that a person is not solely determined by physical properties such as the state of their brain, but that a 'soul' exists seperate. So even if the bodies were identical, the brains identical and the experiences identical...if the souls are different then they are different people who react differently to the same stimuli and thus the universes are different.
The problem I have with this premise is that initial conditions can never be the same. So this in itself would prevent a duplicate world.
And although it is true reality is deterministic there is also a level of randomness to it. But given that this world somehow comes to be identical I would say it would be identical. Souls and emotions and everything else. Would the iron molecules in a indviduals would be the same? Would spontanenous mutations in genes be the same? Would these two worlds evolve on every level of physics end up the same? I can not see how. Just one non functioning microtubual in a sperms flagellum would wipe out Hitlers whole family line. Or perhaps the man who kept him out of art school would not be there to discourage the young Hitler to persue art rather than facism and world domination. Many worlds theory run amuck!!! I do not know what the soul is. It is comforting to think such a thing exist. It is also comforting to think we are truly individual, one soul per occupant.
But some people believe there is one universal soul to which we all tap into. The Collective soul, or Collective conciousness. The brain being the hardware to access the connection and the mind the software.
When we die the connection is terminated. I do not know. I am not a physicalist though, I still think the mind is non physical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2009 12:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2009 7:17 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024