Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[The Belief Doctor]

Why not put it this way:

"Every person has a Buddha nature" ?

******

In other words, particles and people behave the way the do because of peer-group pressure -- if you were to observe a large crowd of people, it would behave statistically (which is what insurance companies heavily rely on).

Insurance companies, yes. I always like a concrete forinstance. But are not insurance companies at least as attached to causation of events as predictors as anyone else? It's simple inductionism, isn't it?

If we assume (well, I don't assume anymore, given the experiences I've had), but if we assume a deeper nonlocal ground (since we now know that a local reality cannot explain the world we experience), then we're all responding to 'downward causation' of crowds, groups, gestalts of particles, people and planets etc.

Is it deterministic if you choose to go against the crowd?

As the character in Flashforward explained, "it's not free-will or fate, it's free-will AND fate"

Meaning, you are fated to 'go along with the crowd' (less so now, than when heretics were burned / Bruno), but still quite the case for the vast majority. But you also have free will, just as do electrons, particles.

We're social creatures, that's what keeps the insurance companies in business, statistically speaking.

But, with nature revealing more power (tsunamis, earthquakes), in addition to social media speeding up 'crowd changing behaviour, insurance companies must be getting very concerned as to the future statistical nature of groups and the environment.

[reflected_light]

What a tangled thread we weave.

Everyone has good arguments and so I find my opinion shifting from one post to another. I am not familiar with Quantum Mechanics or the science of Meta Physics and therefore not biased to certain groups of researchers and am open to all theories alike.

All theories, including those of a creator, break down due to lack of understanding at one point, due to a lack of comprehension.
It seems that the tools of science have revealed results that we are not able to define, while religion exchanges understanding for 'faith' and therein solves the problem of any such incomprehension issues, science must leave these untied ends untied.

So, TBD, to say that nothing is for certain also means that any and all possibilities may occur hence yours and mel's beliefs are as valid as anyone elses, and in turn anyone elses beliefs are as valid as yours.
So any points of contention are redundant and arguing ones belief is solely based on the desire to argue, or the desire to disagree, or the desire to appear smart, etc.

Desire is at the heart of all belief, it is detached from 'facts', because there are 'facts' to support any belief.
One chooses the belief that best suits their desire, or in many cases a belief is 'imposed' upon them due to the lack of 'exercising' those desires.

Desire, this is the basis of my belief, wether desire has any controllable power in the meta-physical world is, as far as I understand, the basis of this thread and is, IMO, one of those 'untied ends' that surround science.

So, maybe we would get to the heart of the issue if we discussed our desires instead of scientific theories.

[reflected_light]

What a tangled thread we weave.

Everyone has good arguments and so I find my opinion shifting from one post to another. I am not familiar with Quantum Mechanics or the science of Meta Physics and therefore not biased to certain groups of researchers and am open to all theories alike.

All theories, including those of a creator, break down due to lack of understanding at one point, due to a lack of comprehension.
It seems that the tools of science have revealed results that we are not able to define, while religion exchanges understanding for 'faith' and therein solves the problem of any such incomprehension issues, science must leave these untied ends untied.

So, TBD, to say that nothing is for certain also means that any and all possibilities may occur hence yours and mel's beliefs are as valid as anyone elses, and in turn anyone elses beliefs are as valid as yours.
So any points of contention are redundant and arguing ones belief is solely based on the desire to argue, or the desire to disagree, or the desire to appear smart, etc.

Desire is at the heart of all belief, it is detached from 'facts', because there are 'facts' to support any belief.
One chooses the belief that best suits their desire, or in many cases a belief is 'imposed' upon them due to the lack of 'exercising' those desires.

Desire, this is the basis of my belief, wether desire has any controllable power in the meta-physical world is, as far as I understand, the basis of this thread and is, IMO, one of those 'untied ends' that surround science.

So, maybe we would get to the heart of the issue if we discussed our desires instead of scientific theories.

[Stormeyy]

Online Philosophy Club

From The Mental Universse, Nature, Vol 436,7 July 2005:

Physicists shy from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke ‘decoherence’ — the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in ‘Renninger-type’ experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental.

Niels Bohr, Nobel Prize laureate in Physics, The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, Vol. I, (Woodbridge, Connecticut: Ox Bow, 1987), p.54:

An independent reality, in the ordinary physical sense, can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation.

Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Prize laureate in Physics, Physics and Philosophy, (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p.145:

The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.

Page 70:

If one wants to give an accurate description of the elementary particle—and here the emphasis is on the word "accurate"—the only thing which can be written down as description is a probability function. But then one sees that not even the quality of being...belongs to what is described.

Materialism is insufficient to explain the non-local and uncertain behavioral characteristics of quanta. Alain Aspect conclusively proved that unobserved quanta cannot be considered to be discrete material objects, and proved that split photons must be considered to be the same global phenomena regardless of intervening distance since the determining observation of one immediately collapsed the qualities of the other into correspondence.

One of the defining qualities of materialism is that the universe is comprised of discrete objects that have discrete characteristics and are located in a specific place at a specific time; without such objects, or particles, or even physical waves that actually exist in specified locations and as specified things, materialism breaks down into disjoint rationalizations and apologetics.

What does materialism mean when, at the most fundamental level, there is no "material" present? By "material" one must mean an identifiable, locatable, quantifiable thing; but it has been proven that no such "things" actually exist on their own outside of an observational collapse of potential states, have no definite location or characteristics, and can exist as a single global object in different locations.

It seems to me that materialists are clinging via apologetics and denial to a 19th-century Newtonian-era philosophy that simply cannot be supported via modern quantum experimentation.

The question is, with the known results of quantum experiments, why bother calling oneself a "materialist" when the "matter" that justified such a view in the 19th century has, upon closer examination, completely disappeared and has been replaced by informational and consciousness-dependent field theories which bear no significant relationship to the the concept of a "material" universe? Why torture, through twisted apologetics, a continued belief in such a thoroughly discredited ontological view?

Brilliant post! Materialism is to say the slightest- very real if not one of the accepted disclipines which can take part to discover/found any given revolution weather or not it is taken to be so or perhaps if instead the insistance is on the value of the endeavour. Materialism is like that okay but without refrence or refutation of the disclipine materialism we are left on one foot standing until we or one discovers a principal of which he or she may be entitled to save the world and bring about "world peace." As your post has indicated with sufficient justiication on my part or perspective, I am only obliged to state that such an analysis is provokative and inflicting of the degree of war which is not welcomed in thousand page threads and others as such.

If your refutation is to cease at this perspective or level then fine- for threads of such being refuted with no validation would be proper given the consideration of what they at times at any rate imply.

I cannot assume which replies or remarks or responses would imply the sufficient detail or justification as to a refutation but your opening post was highly valuable informative and extremely welcoming in such a section.

Please do not attack the assersion here for I welcome the response.

If anything threads and remarks to them can only be refuted and attacked. I look forward to hearing some of the responses which this post may imply. Good job on the op! Cheers!

[Felix]

Belief Doctor said: "As for nature, if nature is not benevolent, then neither is mankind. As within the part, so within the whole. For one to be benevolent, while the other is not implies a disconnect that is, in deeper terms, non-sensical."

Well sure, in the broadest sense of the word, mankind wouldn't be here if nature wasn't "benevolent." But if a rabbit could describe the character of a cosmetics technician who just put a caustic, blinding soda in his eye in order to test the safety of a new cosmetic formula, do you think he'd call him benevolent?

Furthermore , not all qualities of life are apparent at it's inception, but must develop over time. For example, over 4 billion years ago, when Earth was lifeless, benevolence could not be found ("My, look at that large boulder over there, doesn't it look benevolent!"). It had to await the appearance of higher mammals. And the same is true of wo/men, some are in a very early stage of development of benevolence and may never attain the more advanced stages. In fact, if mankind does not evolve to a higher level of benevolence, he may very well become just another extinct species.

Hey, wait a minute, are we in the right Meleager thread? Shouldn't this be in the one about objective morals?

[Belinda]

The Belief Doctor wrote

insurance companies must be getting very concerned as to the future statistical nature of groups and the environment.

As volcano dust claims from stranded passengers testify.

These claims are well within a deterministic frame. The insurance companies are gamblers and this time they lost and the deterministic effect of their loss is that passengers will have to pay more in future. My concern is that stranded passengers are not reimbursed from the public purse. I did not require anyone to go on a pleasure trip, and I deplore any pleasure tripper who thinks mistakenly that the risks of travel are not the business of the traveller herself.
I am a socialist but this stance does not include treating adults as if they are baby children.

[DanDocere]

I dare not read all 19 pages! However, I will give you my take on the Quantum "effect". From what I've read is much based on antecdotal evidence with famous physicists quotations and the like. Let's see what quantum mechanics is really about.

It is a limitation to our knowledge of the world like the speed of light. Yes, there are assumptions with the data that one cannot go faster than this, but its experimental evidence that counts. Therefore, I'm saying this to all thos philosophical assumptions between "classical idealism" and "realism" or a complementary of both is ridiculous, only amusing. Quantum mechanics is like trying to measure an electron using a photon... or vice versa, or another combination of both. Error is in the experiment itself. We are limited because we MUST measure it with the same thing we are measuring!! Please take this to heart. Therefore, we must assume a probability in our understanding of the universe. It doesn't mean ANYTHING with FAITH. It is just a reaction to the machinery to measure a photon/electron.. etc. Quantum mechanics ought not to involve the system of "free will". This is a separate issue, honestly, it involves more neuroscience and probability schemes if you are going to relate the "empirical sciences".

[The Belief Doctor]

It is just a reaction to the machinery to measure a photon/electron.. etc. Quantum mechanics ought not to involve the system of "free will". This is a separate issue, honestly, it involves more neuroscience and probability schemes if you are going to relate the "empirical sciences".

I've seen this sort of misunderstanding of the Quantum Theory a gazillion times, by, I believe, those who seek to cling on to a materialistic world-view.

It is not due to restrictions in the machinery (of measurement). It is integral to the theory.

Nonlocality is now well-verified, and despite it not be able to be directly observed through machinery, doesn't stop it being now understood to be 'fact' sufficient for governments to be investing billions in those facts (e.g. quantum teleportation systems, quantum computers using quantum superpositions etc).

There are simple arguments (thought experiments) why neuroscience will not ever find 'mind'.

The future lies elsewhere (pun intended).

As for quoting 'famous physicists' ... there's a lot more that could have been quoted.

Question: how is it that you're smarter than all those (presumably silly) famous physicists? YOu must have understood something they didn't.

Why not go and set those (who are still living), like Prof. Richard Conn Henry (Johns Hopkins University) straight.

Do society a favour and go sort them out. The lot of them.

And while you're at, tell them not to worry about Godel, Heisenberg, Turing, Chaitin et al... tell them the world really is small.

[DanDocere]

Bell's theorem tells us that if we wish to preserve the results of quantum theory, then we cannot supplement the theory by any sort of locally determined hidden variables. The Aspect experiments tell us that the results of quantum theory, in certain relevant circumstances, are correct. Thus, some type of information about the result of an experiment must travel to other points of space. If we take a reasonable, simple, model of how a measurement actually produces a result, namely, the GRW collapse model, then the experiments that have so far been done, do not distinguish between instantaneous communication, which is required in the orthodox theory, and communication at the speed of light. We discuss how models which incorporate such communication might be constructed, and urge the need for experimental tests. Likely values of the relevant parameters suggest that these are possible. Finally, we note that, contrary to what is generally claimed, nonlocal collapse models which agree in all circumstances with quantum theory do permit instantaneous signals to be sent over arbitrarily large distances.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/b35g12135543l3k7/

Okay I looked this up really quick. Emphasized here: "Urge the need for experimental tests". Just because you have non-locality doesn't mess with the experiments and the... limits to our understanding. The experiments are WHY Hiesenberg's uncertainty principle is the way it is. We cannot measure so far, or yet to be able too! It does NOT mean free will in any way. It is a limit to the understanding. Non-locality is just a new phenomenon to this understanding. You cannot justify it being "free will" or what have you because particles "communicate" at long distances. So many variables are involved, like relativity.

By the way, citing quotes famous people make for an argument is what I meant. Whether right or wrong the quotations are, they are interpretations, not facts. Arguing whether they are right or not as proof of quantum mechanics "free will" is desperate.

And "Neuroscience" I was being a bit sarcastic. My point is you cannot only use philosophical interpretations for quantum mechanics that IS based on experiments. By no means is there any validity with "free will" or not. Only new understandings.

Look I'm not saying there is not "free will" or not. My argument is that one CANNOT assume "free will" because of quantum mechanics.

[The Belief Doctor]

[

Look I'm not saying there is not "free will" or not. My argument is that one CANNOT assume "free will" because of quantum mechanics.

You're most welcome to not assume whatever suits you.

That won't stop intelligent physicists proposing ideas to explain the facts.

Again, the experimentation is independent of the theory. It just so happens that the experiments have confirmed the theory following tens of thousands of experiments.

falling into the idea of free will is like falling in love. In fact it's the exact same process, and the source of genuine creativity; of consciously letting go and falling into a space that cannot be consciously controlled (same for falling asleep, experiencing an orgasm).

And that is why many who are quite logical & rational fail to be spontaneous, creative and funny. It involves trusting that which cannot be 'thought' or logically planned.

As Richard Bach once so deliciously wrote: "Argue for your limitations and sure enough their yours" or words to that effect (from Illusions, as I recall). i.e. if you don't believe in free will you'll miss falling into experiencing it.

Not much fun in that - in my opinion

[reflected_light]

Mosy welcome to not assume whatever suits you?
Aren't you pushing 'free will' doctor?

Let us assume, because as the evidence or lack thereof shows, that is all we can really do.
Assume away, and make sure what you assume suits you, otherwise it is not worth assuming.

It's funny Doctor, you are pushing free-will as though it is of a deterministic nature, that there is no escaping it.
We are destined to choose however we please, but in the end our lives will have arrived at one place, and we have traveled only one path to get there.
It is the free willed choices that determines the outcome of our lives, I'll go as far as saying that free-will is vital for determinism to work.
For if there was no choice there would be no action.

[The Belief Doctor]

Mosy welcome to not assume whatever suits you?
Aren't you pushing 'free will' doctor?

Let us assume, because as the evidence or lack thereof shows, that is all we can really do.
Assume away, and make sure what you assume suits you, otherwise it is not worth assuming.

It's funny Doctor, you are pushing free-will as though it is of a deterministic nature, that there is no escaping it.
We are destined to choose however we please, but in the end our lives will have arrived at one place, and we have traveled only one path to get there.
It is the free willed choices that determines the outcome of our lives, I'll go as far as saying that free-will is vital for determinism to work.
For if there was no choice there would be no action.

Ah, that's what you get when half-focused on stuff.

I fear I've poorly explained.

Free will (an absolute kind that won't ever be reduced to any knowable order, physical, biological or mathematical), is at the root of reality (as indicated by Godel, Heisenberg et al).

Free will is the irreducible 'immathematical' dimension to life.

SO no disagreement with you.

[Belinda]

The Belief Doctor wrote with regard to Free Will

And that is why many who are quite logical & rational fail to be spontaneous, creative and funny. It involves trusting that which cannot be 'thought' or logically planned.

Do you actually believe that this is what philosophers and theologists mean by Free Will?

[Felix]

According to the article referenced (see link), Meleager's opening argument was refuted 2 billion years ago by plants. Does it not sting when a plant bests you at a debate?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 131356.htm

[The Belief Doctor]

The Belief Doctor wrote with regard to Free Will

And that is why many who are quite logical & rational fail to be spontaneous, creative and funny. It involves trusting that which cannot be 'thought' or logically planned.

Do you actually believe that this is what philosophers and theologists mean by Free Will?

Hi Belinda

I wouldn't know what philosophers and theologians actually think - as a general rule I don't much pay attention to their views and opinions. I sense they were left behind in the wake of quantum physics. I've seen far more eloquent, powerful, spiritual insights coming from physicists than philosophers. In my opinion, first are writers & poets, then physicists, spiritual teachers, and the occasional theologian (Bishop Spong comes to mind) ... then probably the wisdom of crowds, then maybe philosophers, theologians, scientists and last, and least wise, atheists.

I suppose another way of saying the above, is who is best at expressing and explaining matters of deep soul, heart and emotion - the stuff that really matters?