Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
clouds of an electron's probability
#21
(05-24-2017, 09:12 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  
Quote:I forgot to ask something that I'm curious about.  I get funny looks when I describe how I 'see' scientific stuff.
So how the hell does everyone else see it??   To echo our dear departed Marius ... what is your concept of the universe??

Pretty much exactly how it's pictured in pictures. In colour. I can't imagine any other way of seeing it.

Lots of black.

[quote='stanky' pid='32160' dateline='1495686053']
The part we don't understand is the 'instigator' of the thought that causes certain parts of the brain to light up.
We know a fair deal about the fleshy stuff.

Do we know why cells divide? What takes it on a cell, existing happily on its own, to split and become two?

It's what they do.

Just as sugar crystals will grow from a saturated solution (easy one as I have a batch of that working right now at home) some shit happens. Like gravity. Who cares why mass makes gravity? It just does - why does anyone need to know why? You seem to be skating dangerously close to the god of the gaps.

(05-24-2017, 09:20 PM)stanky Wrote:  Why wouldn't we place special significance to consciousness?
What could be of more special significance?

I, like the universe, give consciousness no more significance than the plastic I'm typing on. Why should it have special significance? Are you becoming Buddhist?

Nothing wrong with it if you are, but it's the path you're on.

(05-24-2017, 09:20 PM)stanky Wrote:  The standard avoidance of the subject is to see it as a by-product of the fleshy stuff.
Other approaches are in violation of a sort of Newtonian loyalty oath that may in fact, obscure the reality.

I think that's just about exactly what Gautama Buddha said, apart from the Newtonian physics bit.

I'm intrigued as to why you're constantly looking for "more".

Again Douglas Adams (and George Orwell, et al):

Isn't the wonder of life & the universe enough, without needing to see fairies at the bottom of the garden?
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#22
Yup.

Except, as i see it, the fairies in the garden are what we're insisting is real.
I have no interest in that stuff.

What i do find interesting is the nature of the universe and life and such.
Why would I want to impose boundaries on it that may not exist?

Not to blow up significance of anything, in general, but clearly, whatever you are that is commanding the plastic device in front of you; created by you (we, us, Woz, etc.) is of more significance and more mysterious.

It's the stuff we don't understand that has extra significance.
I think we understand the fairies in the garden quite well. Being as they are devoid of evidence, they are a boring side-show of unimaginative wishful thinking.

Biological interface with quantum mechanics is interesting. Parallel dimensions; the nature of perception and awareness is interesting.
We've been learning things that open up the universe. As that process unfolds, there is always the tendency to maintain the old borders that feel comfortable.

Methinks you have me confused for someone else.
Reply
#23
Do multiple personality schizophrenics see various different versions of the universe??

Do some of them see it as a set of equations? while others are convinced that it was a creation of the god thing?
What concept of it do those born blind have? They could learn the numbers, but could they 'visualize' at all?
Do any of us 'see' it the same? Is the 'split personality' person actually 'seeing' multiple universes??

Is our individual concept controlled entirely by the circuitry plan of our individual neural systems?
Is that imprinted at conception or is it imprinted by incoming data? .. Nature v. Nurture.

Which brings me back to the schizos ... do each of the personalities have their own separate brain circuitry for processing data??
(Not separate brains, but separate pathways within it that each uses exclusively?)

Do they reach a different conclusion from the same information?

There's some puzzling stuff goes on in that spongy blob.

We tend to "burn a track" of most used thought patterns (I assume from what I've read of the subject)

The most used pathways are stronger than those not used so maybe that's why it's so hard to think laterally for some, or to change our minds.
Is that due to personality, sheer stubborness,? or is it an organic hurdle, a protective built in barrier in 'burned' circuits against data that doesn't follow the normal track?

We have engineered our own brain into a set pattern of information processing and automatically reject that which doesn't fit the pattern. It causes us to 'cherry pick' that which does fit most easily with what we've been self programmed to accept.

I remember some research results about those with severe brain injury being re--educated while being watched which parts of their brain was being activated. Apparently the whole 'burning new circuit tracks' was seen happening indicated by the increasing 'light blob' activity in whatever that thing is called that they measure brain activity with.

I was impressed with just how complex the whole notion of 'sentience' is.

I remember too seeing the brain 'map' of a young woman born with spina bifida who was high functioning enough to graduate with a diploma in something or other but whose skull had a big hollow in middle where the brain should be.

She obviously had one but it was like an an avocado with the seed missing. A really big seed! Big hollow.

All the functions that were normally found in the 'missing' region had relocated themselves to other parts of her brain and functioning perfectly well.

Blew me away!

Anyway, I guess the point is that I wonder if those who insist on restricting thought within the parameters of the proven are wasting a good bit of it?
Reply
#24
Two things that we have evidence of that might make some wild flights of fancy seem less wooish:

1. Perception and observation's role in reality. What we don't have is any evidence that there is any reality seperate from our consciousness and perception. And how could we? We never will.
2. There is evidence that the vast majority (90%) of what there is, remains something that, so far, is beyond our awareness; i.e., dark matter; dark energy, etc.

When you toss that together, there is room for some really wild hypothesis. I'm careful that mine don't actually violate any of the known laws.
I have no interest in making any claims that are easily disproven; nor do I make any hard claims about various speculations concerning various potentialities and probabilities.
I'm no Buddhist. Though, if i was religiously inclined, I guess they'd be my choice as the least offensive of the big ones.
I do have big respect for that which can be perceived in the quieted mind. No dogma or guru is required for that.

For people that have never had that experience, which is almost everyone, some of my speculations will likely sound like madness.

(I could suppose that my opinion of my own sanity is a sure sign of insanity. Ultimately, it remains a matter of opinion...unless its manifestations are as overt as mumbling and drooling and being convinced that the mother ship is waiting, and therefore i must castrate myself. I'm not there yet.)
Reply
#25
(05-24-2017, 10:34 PM)stanky Wrote:  Yup.

Except, as i see it, the fairies in the garden are what we're insisting is real.
I have no interest in that stuff.

Then you're embracing solipsism.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#26
(05-24-2017, 12:42 AM)stanky Wrote:  Nuts and bolts work fine.
What we have trouble with is accepting that they are made out of nothing.

Our thousand years of physical evidence has recently gotten interesting.

Define the term nothing.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#27
(05-25-2017, 02:01 PM)The Atheist Wrote:  
(05-24-2017, 10:34 PM)stanky Wrote:  Yup.

Except, as i see it, the fairies in the garden are what we're insisting is real.
I have no interest in that stuff.

Then you're embracing solipsism.

I don't see that particular ism as being apt. If he's heading in the direction I think he is then he's positing the opposite.
That it's not his own perception being the only relevant view, but that everyone's mind is perceiving different versions of it ... but I could have gotten that wrong, purely down to bias of wondering about the same thing.
Reply
#28
gosh, Di.

This makes twice you've covered for me.

I think it's safe to assume that the angle I'm working is the most sophisticated angle possible, while having any chance of being comprehensible.
T.A. and Sparky are just being stodgy.

Got to hand it to Sparky, though.
"Define nothing" is a line for the ages.

Imagine being dead. That's another good one.

OK, I'll play:

Nothing is that from which everything came.

(I feel pretty safe in being wrong about that. It's not like someone has the facts and figures to debunk it.)

as per solipsism, it's not the worst of the isms to be accused of.
I've never considered the notion that I'm all there is...but I have considered that we're all comprised of the same singularity.
One is very ego-centric; the other; the ultimate in humility.

Yeah, those two things are pretty much the same.
Any sense of one's own humility automatically gets filed in the narcissist drawer.
Even pretending to be a narcissist to hide the embarrassment of being humble falls into the ego box.

I've made my peace with paradox. I'm at home with it.
Reply
#29
Quote:gosh, Di.


This makes twice you've covered for me.

S'okay, I'm keeping score. Wink
Reply
#30
(05-25-2017, 04:08 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  
(05-25-2017, 02:01 PM)The Atheist Wrote:  Then you're embracing solipsism.

I don't see that particular ism as being apt.  If he's heading in the direction I think he is then he's positing the opposite.
That it's not his own perception being the only relevant view, but that everyone's mind is perceiving different versions of it ... but I could have gotten that wrong, purely down to bias of wondering about the same thing.

I should clarify the point I'm heading to:

I'm pretty sure we're all perceiving more or less the same thing, within this particular dream. If we weren't, we'd never be able to construe a reliable and repeatable consensus. I think we all see ice turning liquid at the same temperature. If a tree falls over, none of us sees it as still standing.
In the finer details, who knows? Doesn't much matter to me, except as a curiosity. I can imagine that individuals may perceive certain tastes and odors slightly differently. Clearly, some of us react very differently from the ingestion of the same poison...stuff like that...

What I'm suggesting is that there are completely different universes, with their own details, that we have access to, via perception and awareness. They are made out of the same bits as this one, but the bits are expressing a different probability.

Upon entry, we would again be pretty much in agreement about the nuts and bolts of that version. Both would have the same degree of realness. Yet, said notion adds a bit of a whammy to the notion of real, in general. 
yet, if we accept what we've learned about the quantum mechanical realm, we should be braced for that sort of thing.

It helps to shake free of the solar system picture of atoms. It's fairly misleading, as are the billiard ball analogies.

Something I've expressed elsewhere, on other sites, which may have some validity, is that thought requires physical metaphors.
In that regard, the web has enabled a new metaphor for our thought process. Not because of ts content, or even how it works, but more because we are now able to accept the concept of being connected via something invisible.

Not very long ago, such a metaphor didn't exist, and would have been in the realm of crazy, had we been able to express it.
Now, it's become almost mundane. Of course all manner of invisible waves are zipping around, somehow carrying information that we can verify with each other. It's part of our new consensus. Yet, not long ago, it didn't exist, and would have sounded insane had someone employed the metaphor in their thought process.

So, we have a new tool in our box which opens up the very nature of thought.

On a more base level of the role of perception and thought, when confronted with a new phenomena that doesn't fit in our inventory, such as a primitive tribe first seeing a photograph, we lack the knowledge or reference point to make any sense of it. We have to learn how to perceive meaning in a 2d representation of the 3d world. The same is true, according to some accounts, that when a 'primitive' first encounters the sight of a huge ship, off their shores, there's no way of telling how big it is or how far away it is.

We have to learn that stuff.

anyway, where I'd like to head in this, is to jump off from this point; do some extrapolating and hypothesizing, using some of what we've been learning in the newest of things we've been learning, and see where that takes us.

In other words, I'd like to describe a vision.

If no one is game to go along, I'll understand. It's a bit disturbing to question the very foundation of that which we've come to accept as the only reality.


To Di:

I'd say this isn't the same thing as schizophrenia. I wouldn't know. I guess it's possible that crazy people accidentally access alternate realities. My opinion is that it requires heaps of sanity and minimal baggage.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)