Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Interactive SFN Forums
 Comments on Articles
 The Truth About The Bible And Evolution
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

Farseeker
Skeptic Friend

Canada
76 Posts

Posted - 08/13/2010 :  21:45:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Farseeker a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Right you are.

Heinlein is one of my favorite authors from my youth. I must be tired... time to go to bed.

Ted
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25976 Posts

Posted - 08/13/2010 :  22:30:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker

1. is there a god or God?
obvious answer... depends on how one defines such. Yes for some people, no for others. As Dr. Phil likes to say, "Perception is reality".
So Dr. Phil shows himself to be a post-modernist idiot, a lover of smarmy sophistries, or just someone who doesn't like the fact that complex questions have complex answers.
2. Do we have an understanding of consciousness? Is there a "law" of conservation of consciousness (we have a "law" of conservation of lots of things. Matter, energy, spin, momentum, electrical charge, etc.). So, why not consciousness?
There are many more quantities which aren't conserved than that are. There is no law of conservation of postage rates, or of gas mileage, or even of density. For every quantity for which you can name a law of conservation, I can offer ten or a hundred quantities which aren't conserved, depending on how much effort I'd like to put forth.
Of course, I have not seen a definition of courteousness that addresses my experience. As the Japanese poet said; "Last night I dreamed I was a butterfly. Or am I butterfly dreaming I am a man?" Excuse me if I did not quote exactly.
Doesn't matter if the quote is of ineffective pablum.
The point is valid. I think I exist, and the world is a dream. Interesting hypotheses, how do I test it? One writer said "reality is the furniture you stumble over in the dark". Good point!
Only a good point if you haven't spent any time thinking about the nature of reality and solipsism (and how to escape it). The most-interesting part being that if you assert a malleable reality based on perception, then it's impossible to test in any scientific manner.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend

Hong Kong
380 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  01:31:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send chefcrsh a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil
But really, so much for being omnipotent.


"Where are you?"





Or omniscient...
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13458 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  07:26:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chefcrsh

Originally posted by Kil
But really, so much for being omnipotent.


"Where are you?"





Or omniscient...
Yeah. Huh...

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  07:48:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by chefcrsh

Originally posted by Kil
But really, so much for being omnipotent.


"Where are you?"





Or omniscient...
Precisely. If he has to ask "where are you?" He's not omniscient but God can't be shown to exist any more so than the Easter bunny, so it's really no different than adults believing in Santa Clause. Fantasy starts where reality stops and age is no barrier. SS

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

Farseeker
Skeptic Friend

Canada
76 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  11:29:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Farseeker a Private Message  Reply with Quote
There are many more quantities which aren't conserved than that are.


The idea is not that heterogeneous factors get conserved, but that the underlying fundamentals do.

All matter gets conserved or converted to energy, which is also conserved.

I would guess you know about the standard model of physics and the electro weak theory, and possibly you know about the Grand Unified Theories that are being researched.

So, let me be clear. I have seen no compelling evidence for what constitutes consciousness, but I am conscious at least part of the day.

Some people believe consciousness, or more correctly self-consciousness arises out of the complexity of our brains. A hypothesis at best.

Likewise, there are scientists that believe thought is a process based on some quantum level within our cells. When in doubt, mutter something about quantum.

No one has any convincing evidence (at least not enough to convince me) as to what is consciousness. If I can believe in virtual particles, negative energy and multiple dimensions (as per string theory) then I can believe in a consciousness particle as a hypothesis. And once we have a particle, it is reasonable to think it will interact with the rest of the universe, even if only as weakly as neutrinos.

I have yet to see a convincing explanation of what fires the first electron after I think "let's pick up my coffee cup". Conscious thought, forms intent, starts a process where brain directs my hand, using memory, muscles, nerves, etc. along the way.

Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  11:35:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker
If I can believe in virtual particles, negative energy and multiple dimensions (as per string theory) then I can believe in a consciousness particle as a hypothesis.
Consciousness particle? Oh, man. You don't know THoR by any chance, do you?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/14/2010 11:36:03
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9666 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  13:13:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker
If I can believe in virtual particles, negative energy and multiple dimensions (as per string theory) then I can believe in a consciousness particle as a hypothesis. And once we have a particle, it is reasonable to think it will interact with the rest of the universe, even if only as weakly as neutrinos.

As long as you believe such, you're more in the land of Religion than in the land of science.

I don't believe in science. I accept the latest concensus theory as the best (but imperfect) explanation we currently have, while waiting for a better explanation.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Farseeker
Skeptic Friend

Canada
76 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  14:31:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Farseeker a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker
If I can believe in virtual particles, negative energy and multiple dimensions (as per string theory) then I can believe in a consciousness particle as a hypothesis. And once we have a particle, it is reasonable to think it will interact with the rest of the universe, even if only as weakly as neutrinos.

As long as you believe such, you're more in the land of Religion than in the land of science.



Go to Top of Page

Farseeker
Skeptic Friend

Canada
76 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  14:42:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Farseeker a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker
If I can believe in virtual particles, negative energy and multiple dimensions (as per string theory) then I can believe in a consciousness particle as a hypothesis. And once we have a particle, it is reasonable to think it will interact with the rest of the universe, even if only as weakly as neutrinos.

As long as you believe such, you're more in the land of Religion than in the land of science.


Such?

Virtual particles are an accepted part of scientific theory. Steven Hawkings postulated that a black hole can evaporate over time via virtual particles forming at the event horizon, with one of the two particles captured, the other escaping. This is part of "science" as we know it.

Likewise, negative energy is part of theoretical physics.

Likewise multiple dimensions is part of theoretical physics, specifically various forms of string theory.

A hypothesis is part of science until experiments are devised to prove or disprove it. Often this takes decades, if not longer.

Just because you may not believe that "invisible beasties" can make you sick does not mean Louis Pasteur was not part of science, or that his germ theory was part of religion. I have every confidence that at least one idea introduced in the 21st century and hailed as "crazy" will prove correct. This is an expectation based on the fact that this has happened to "science" so many times before. And "science" has proven so many religious concepts either wrong or has given a superior theory to explain it. One day, I will be able to clap my hands and the lights will come on....oh, wait, I can do it now if I buy the "clapper". Arther C Clark "a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Perhaps it is also indistinguishable from religion. Perhaps.


Go to Top of Page

Farseeker
Skeptic Friend

Canada
76 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  14:44:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Farseeker a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Consciousness particle? Oh, man. You don't know THoR by any chance, do you?


No, I don't. And after a very brief read, we would not agree on much.

I gather you did not mean to be flattering to either of us.
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  14:47:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker
I gather you did not mean to be flattering to either of us.
I don't think consciousness particles are a sane idea, if that's what you're asking.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/14/2010 14:48:20
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25976 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  15:26:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker

There are many more quantities which aren't conserved than that are.
The idea is not that heterogeneous factors get conserved, but that the underlying fundamentals do.

All matter gets conserved or converted to energy, which is also conserved.
But it does not follow that anything made of matter and/or energy is also conserved. The number of neutrons in the universe is not conserved. So even if consciousness were a particle, there's no reason to think that it would be conserved.
Some people believe consciousness, or more correctly self-consciousness arises out of the complexity of our brains. A hypothesis at best.
A hypothesis that matches observations without requiring the existence of a particle for which there is no evidence.
Likewise, there are scientists that believe thought is a process based on some quantum level within our cells.
Name one.
When in doubt, mutter something about quantum.
Deepak Chopra is not a scientist.
No one has any convincing evidence (at least not enough to convince me) as to what is consciousness.
That's what's important, isn't it?
If I can believe in virtual particles, negative energy and multiple dimensions (as per string theory) then I can believe in a consciousness particle as a hypothesis.
You believe in such things?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Farseeker
Skeptic Friend

Canada
76 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  15:29:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Farseeker a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Farseeker
I gather you did not mean to be flattering to either of us.
I don't think consciousness particles are a sane idea, if that's what you're asking.


Do you believe the graviton (a gravity particle) is a sane idea?

The point is not that consciousness IS a particle, but that the information that supports the phenomenon of consciousness , the "carrier" if you like, has a particle.

Photons are theorized to be particles of light. Those who believe light is a wave phenomenon fought against this concept, though now there seems be agreement that both are ...sort of... right. No one calls the other insane.

Gravitons are accepted as a valid theory of gravity, though undiscovered so far in reality.

So, every force seems to be either a particle or a wave. Quantum theory seems to imply that it can be both, based on context.

You do not need to agree with me, but why call my ideas insane, when every force we know can be plausibly defined as a particle?

Do you have a better idea, or just like calling others ideas insane?
Go to Top of Page

Farseeker
Skeptic Friend

Canada
76 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2010 :  15:39:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Farseeker a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Some people believe consciousness, or more correctly self-consciousness arises out of the complexity of our brains. A hypothesis at best.

A hypothesis that matches observations without requiring the existence of a particle for which there is no evidence.


How do you get to say there is no evidence? Have you read ALL the literature and come up with that conclusion? How about a simple Google question to see if there is at least some evidence?

I will quote some research as follows. Not saying they are right, but this is done by real physicists doing real research. Yes, it was done in Israel, not the USA, but I found this via Google in just a few minutes. Again, it does not prove anything, other than it is a reasonable line of research.

"In some strange way an electron or a photon seems to 'know' about changes in the environment and appears to respond accordingly," says physicist Danah Zohar.

A group at the Weizmann Institute in Israel has done a variation of the famous "double-slit" experiment. They used electrons, instead of photons, and observed how the resultant interference pattern (which indicates wave-like properties of the particle) dissipated the longer you watched the electrons go through the slits. As a wave the electron passes through both slits simultaneously but if, according to E Buks, it "senses" that it is being watched, the electron (as a particle) goes through only one path, diminishing the interference pattern. Elementary particles (such as photons and electrons) appear to possess a certain degree of "intelligence" and awareness of the environment. Renowned plasma and particle physicist, David Bohm, says "In some sense a rudimentary mind-like quality is present even at the level of particle physics. As we go to subtler levels this mind-like quality becomes stronger and more developed."

Consciousness appears to be as fundamental a property to elementary particles as properties that make it "matter" or a "physical force" (for example, mass, spin and charge). And just as mass, spin and charge differ from one particle to another; it is probable that different particles have different degrees of consciousness.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.25 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000