aneeshm
Deity
punkbass2000 said:
As God is not fundamentally any different from any other consciousness ( only that he has reached the knowledge that all consciousness is God ) , I would say yes .
Materialism and Consciousness.
- Thread starter cgannon64
- Start date
As God is not fundamentally any different from any other consciousness ( only that he has reached the knowledge that all consciousness is God ) , I would say yes .
aneeshm said:
I would say no. Think for a moment what omnipotence means. Its not simply all powerfull. It's thought manifest. To want is to be incomplete.
Therefore for an omnipotent being to desire a certain outcome is to say it has reliquished control; because if it was in control then the outcome would already be predetermined.
To reliquish control over something is then be powerless concerning it. Omniptence is then negated.
aneeshm
Deity
Secular said:
But I consider omnipotence irrelevant in the model I describe .
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
cgannon64 said:
Is God not everything?
Meleager
Stoned as a Statue
Well, the bible doesn't say that he is (it doesn't say that he isn't either).punkbass2000 said:
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
aneeshm said:
Yeah, but that was a question for cg
. I tend to think you've probably got free will worked out 
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
Meleager said:
Geez, I'm sorry to keep being snobbish, but these questions are for cg
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
aneeshm said:
High-lighted.
CartesianFart
Deity
I am not really interested in the theory of conciousness or anything in that spectrum,but i recommend after reading your book that you just mentioned to glance over this-Gilbert Ryle "Ghost in the Machine."If this startle you,i can say that it is a good read.cgannon64 said:
Good thing that you are reading Godel.I highly recommend him.Escher..hmm?
are you referring to the artist Escher?example:this is one of my favorite drawings of his.
Perfection said:
Free will and quantum mechanics
OK the basics we can not determine at any point both where and how fast a particle such as an electron in an atom is moving. heisenbergs uncertainty principle
We cannot observe a particle without changing that particle therefore before we have measured it the cat is both alive and dead ala Schrodingers cat mind experiment:- which leads to
Super position electons appear to exist in every available position and orientation around an atom as long as it obeys the pauli exclusion pronciple that no to electrons can exist in the same state, I.e you can't have 3 electrons in the first shell or 2 electrons in the same position.
Quantum particles can and will do some extremely bizarre things, like appear on the other side of the universe for no apparent reason, or for example they can become entangled as in photons, so that whatever happens to one particle is instantly communicated to another, regardless of distance between the two seemingly but not actually appearing to defy the law that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Also particles pop in and out of existence all the time their life span is proportional the energy debt of their existence and planks constant.
So what we say is when you get down to the nano level of electron transference in the human brain, and the chemicle nano world. Wierd stuff happens all the time so wierd that you cannot ever say precisely why or what is happening. This means that inspiration for example could simply be a quantum blip or it could be an evolutionary chemicle process. But since no one can tell exactly how or why or what anything at the quantum level is going to do at any time, this leads to the notion that there is free will, because everything is probabilistic and not based in anyway on what has happened before.
As was said earlier this brings the whole question of interpritation into question: if we are programmed by evolution to see the quantum, must we not ask ourselves if that is what is really there? Has DNA simply found a way that suits reverse entropy, is anything we see exactly as it is. Did by thinking about the quantum we invent it or was it there to begin with.
Quantum mechanics=free will.
Destroy the laws of quantum mechanics and I will concede there is no free will
Perfection
The Great Head.
Nah, Sidhe, that's philosophical bull. Nueral systems like synaspes are large enough that statistical behavior takes over and quantum effects can be ignored.
Nope that's not true actually, are you telling me that electron impulses cannot be affected by quantum effects? And if this is the case can a misfiring not occur given a sufficient amount of time and if that's the case how can you say anything is preordained if nothing can be? Given a missfire leads to an idea or behavioural shift and it's very existence is owed to quantum probability?
If you reduce the brains activities down to the fundemental level at which they interact or the quantum world, then anything can happen, this means that if anything can happen down there then nothing up there can be said to be absolute either, given enough time the micro will spill over into the macro. Given enough time according to quantum probability it should be possible for a person to dissapear and spontaneously appear on mars for no discernable reason.
If you reduce the brains activities down to the fundemental level at which they interact or the quantum world, then anything can happen, this means that if anything can happen down there then nothing up there can be said to be absolute either, given enough time the micro will spill over into the macro. Given enough time according to quantum probability it should be possible for a person to dissapear and spontaneously appear on mars for no discernable reason.
My bolding. It appears that you skipped a few steps. "This means..." "This leads to..." do not necessarily follow from what you said.Sidhe said:
Things exist independent of whether or not we know about them. Seeing the ocean for the first time does not "create" the ocean. Seeing it may create an awareness of it for me, but that is a very local effect. Quantum particles and forces have been making matter since the beginning. Just because we have identified such things and given them names and mathematical descriptions doesn't mean we created them or that we have fully described them any more than we have fully described the sun and the stars.Sidhe said:As was said earlier this brings the whole question of interpritation into question: if we are programmed by evolution to see the quantum, must we not ask ourselves if that is what is really there? Has DNA simply found a way that suits reverse entropy, is anything we see exactly as it is. Did by thinking about the quantum we invent it or was it there to begin with.
Quantum mechanics=free will. Destroy the laws of quantum mechanics and I will concede there is no free will
I do not see any valid link between quantum characteristics and free will at all. I think it is wishful thinking on your part.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Sure it's possible, but compared to the quantum scale, nuerons are huge, statistical behavior takes over. The deviations from the mean in such a system are extremely small.Sidhe said:
Birdjaguar said:
I did come up with the idea of quantum mechanics destroying predeterminism independantly, but there are reams and reams of philosophers and psychologists who say the same thing, I suggest you read the paper I directed you too, a very credible scientist makes the same inference about quantum principles supporting the idea of materialism and of course he later goes on to use the ideas to destroy them. Yes I know it's long and has big words, but please read it carefully before you criticise me
Because you are also criticising alot of scientifc and philosophical papers too.
Perfection
The Great Head.
It's actually quite predictable, especially when we're dealing with large numbers. That's why classical physics works so well. An electron may be unpredictable, but a nueron isn't.Sidhe said:
Note the lack of physicistsSidhe said:
You want to translate quantum effects into much higher level chemical effects. I do not think there is any basis for that claim.Sidhe said:
Can you actual support the statement that a single misfire in the brain can lead to inspiration?
And if I had an infinite number of monkeys typing forever, eventualy they would produce the works of Shakespeare. So what? Given how genes work, it is "possible" that a chicken will lay an egg that will hatch out a T rex. I would say that your example and my two are all impossible, will never happen,and to apply theoretical mathematical probabilites to the real world is mostly intellectual masterbation.Sidhe said:
I am an equal opportunity critic, but I will take a look at the link. IMHO philosophy is mostly about thinking and irrelevant to the way the world actually works. Philosophers are mathematicians with words, and without the practical application of numbers.Sidhe said:I did come up with the idea of quantum mechanics destroying predeterminism independantly, but there are reams and reams of philosophers and psychologists who say the same thing, I suggest you read the paper I directed you too, a very credible scientist makes the same inference about quantum principles supporting the idea of materialism and of course he later goes on to use the ideas to destroy them. Yes I know it's long and has big words, but please read it carefully before you criticise me
yes but biologists are incapable of dealing with maths.
OK lets make this nice and easy so the biologists don't get all confused.
Predeterminism states that everything is preordained from the start fo the universe to the end that nothing we do is out of free will we are just walking the path of our programming. If one event in the whole history of the universe is chaotic then that is predeterminism dead. And that's one event in the whole of creation ever? Now please understand the basics behind the idea of predeterminsim and free will arguments and acknowledge that QM means there is no predeterminism if you can't acknowledge that your not talking any sense.
Right that said you can say the same thing in science that alot of what we percieve and see could simply be due to the way we're programmed to see things because that is advantageous to our evolution, not because it's what is actually there.
What if what we see the quantum doesn't exist have I not just disproven that there is free will are we not back to square one.
To disprove free will you need to overturn the laws of Quantum Mechanics; come back when the maths sinks in or the physics for that matter
OK lets make this nice and easy so the biologists don't get all confused.
Predeterminism states that everything is preordained from the start fo the universe to the end that nothing we do is out of free will we are just walking the path of our programming. If one event in the whole history of the universe is chaotic then that is predeterminism dead. And that's one event in the whole of creation ever? Now please understand the basics behind the idea of predeterminsim and free will arguments and acknowledge that QM means there is no predeterminism if you can't acknowledge that your not talking any sense.
Right that said you can say the same thing in science that alot of what we percieve and see could simply be due to the way we're programmed to see things because that is advantageous to our evolution, not because it's what is actually there.
What if what we see the quantum doesn't exist have I not just disproven that there is free will are we not back to square one.
To disprove free will you need to overturn the laws of Quantum Mechanics; come back when the maths sinks in
or the physics for that matterSimilar threads
- Poll
