Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
clouds of an electron's probability
#31
Re the schizo, I wasn't referring to the mental aberration, but rather wondering if the secondary personality engendered has it's own opinions that differ from the brain's 'host's'.   They have different 'personalities' so why not different opinions/perceptions?

In which case it would prove that our brain can't be relied upon to have quite as firm a grip on "how things are" as we'd like to think it does.

I'm not suggesting the mentally generated personality is  accessing 'alternate realities' just forming different perceptions of something despite seeing  the same data through the same sensory organs.  
As  eyewitness accounts of an event always vary due to different perceptions of it.

How we store facts in our data banks is dependent on what neurological tracks it travels down, the well worn one will gather a certain type of data and other unrecognised data gets lost on 'the roads less traveled' so to speak.

A newer, secondary personality may be using those less traveled tracks and perceiving things a little differently.
It may be more naive, and accepting what is there, but   has been discounted as improbable by the older, more logical cranial room-mate.

But don't let me derail you, you are expressing things on a material basis, I'm assessing them based on perceptions of them, I can't do the hard science.   Maybe though the two are not completely incompatible.

I can only visually understand sciency things.  But not in 2d.  Those examples of how gravity works, using a rubber sheet with a weighted ball and then other orbiting balls is not how I see gravity.  It taught me how gravity works but it's shown on a surface, and that's 2d.   My visual grid is 3d, but the example works for me, I can 'see' how it operates in 3d without the flexible surface  .. anyway, just thought I'd throw that in in case you thought I was 'seeing' things scientific as in a picture book. Blush
Reply
#32
(05-25-2017, 06:36 PM)stanky Wrote:  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.

Yes, that has been posited before, aside from the perception and awareness.

(05-25-2017, 06:36 PM)stanky Wrote:  Something I've expressed elsewhere, on other sites, which may have some validity, is that thought requires physical metaphors.

Orwell, 1984.

It's a nice theory, but not quite right. The problem is, if it's correct, we wouldn't be capable of abstract thought.

(05-25-2017, 06:36 PM)stanky Wrote:  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.

I disagree that it didn't exist prior. CB radio had sometimes thousands of people connected to the same channel, interacting with each other and the group. Likewise VHF/Ham radio.

(05-25-2017, 06:36 PM)stanky Wrote:  In other words, I'd like to describe a vision.

Go ahead, but don't be surprised if I don't buy in.

(05-25-2017, 11:18 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Re the schizo, I wasn't referring to the mental aberration, but rather wondering if the secondary personality engendered has it's own opinions that differ from the brain's 'host's'.   They have different 'personalities' so why not different opinions/perceptions?

You're confusing split/multiple personalities with schizophrenia - they are completely different, and I think there's a question mark over the whole multiple personality one.

There is, and here's a handy guide to the whole business: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder#1

(05-25-2017, 11:18 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  As  eyewitness accounts of an event always vary due to different perceptions of it.

I'd say it's more because people are inobservant thickos, based on long experience at dealing with eyewitness accounts and years spent training people in how to observe and recall things they witness.

That's why banks have those markers on the doors - people are utterly hopeless at telling height even and the marks provide a helpful guide.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#33
(05-25-2017, 11:18 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Re the schizo, I wasn't referring to the mental aberration, but rather wondering if the secondary personality engendered has it's own opinions that differ from the brain's 'host's'.   They have different 'personalities' so why not different opinions/perceptions?

In which case it would prove that our brain can't be relied upon to have quite as firm a grip on "how things are" as we'd like to think it does.

I'm not suggesting the mentally generated personality is  accessing 'alternate realities' just forming different perceptions of something despite seeing  the same data through the same sensory organs.  
As  eyewitness accounts of an event always vary due to different perceptions of it.

How we store facts in our data banks is dependent on what neurological tracks it travels down, the well worn one will gather a certain type of data and other unrecognised data gets lost on 'the roads less traveled' so to speak.

A newer, secondary personality may be using those less traveled tracks and perceiving things a little differently.
It may be more naive, and accepting what is there, but   has been discounted as improbable by the older, more logical cranial room-mate.

But don't let me derail you, you are expressing things on a material basis, I'm assessing them based on perceptions of them, I can't do the hard science.   Maybe though the two are not completely incompatible.

I can only visually understand sciency things.  But not in 2d.  Those examples of how gravity works, using a rubber sheet with a weighted ball and then other orbiting balls is not how I see gravity.  It taught me how gravity works but it's shown on a surface, and that's 2d.   My visual grid is 3d, but the example works for me, I can 'see' how it operates in 3d without the flexible surface  .. anyway, just thought I'd throw that in in case you thought I was 'seeing' things scientific as in a picture book. Blush

I was going to answer your original post on this. I agree with TA that split/multi personalities are bullshit. There isn't enough room in how the brain works for it. Schizophrenia is basically a chemical production malfunction. The highs and lows are intermittent. I think there's a lot of bullshit in mental illness.  I think the normal that the mental illness industry holds as it's standard is probably bullshit.
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply
#34
Well gees, that theory didn't last long. Never mind, I'll hunt up some others.
Reply
#35
I get what your saying, Di.
There is no doubt that our brains, via our sensory organs, act as a filtering device. Clearly, we have to pick and choose from a flood of sensory data. It's not unreasonable to suggest that bits and pieces of it get stashed away and pop up occasionally.

Dreams are a useful metaphor. To suddenly remember one, as if from out of nowhere, when we weren't trying to, is an example.
On occasion, we can't remember if we dreamed something, or if it 'really' happened.


T.A.,

I wouldn't expect you to 'buy in'.
I find it amusing that science itself is punching some holes in the parameters of scientific materialism. Quantum mechanics and astrophysics enable abstract thought via example.

Let me try to reword something:
We need words to think. We think with words. In language, initially, words require objects. The word becomes a symbolic representation of the object. If you try to catch yourself thinking, even abstract thought is based on words that are based on objects. We need the idea of the spear to get to the bow and arrow.The thought words connect, backwards, to objects....and we can abstract from there.

But even in pure fantasy or sci-fi, which we may enjoy reading, there would be no way to make meaning of it without some connection to real world experiences. Without a jumping off platform, there would be pure gibberish.

In a lucid dream wherein we are doing the impossible, like flying, it begins on the solid ground of the dream. Sequence seems to be a necessity for coherence...even if, in reality, sequence is something we impose on our perceptions. Without that trick, our filing systems would be chaotic.
Reply
#36
(05-26-2017, 02:29 AM)Shiner Wrote:  I think there's a lot of bullshit in mental illness.  I think the normal that the mental illness industry holds as it's standard is probably bullshit.

Did you ever take a look at the thread I had at ISF: "The Ongoing Failure of the Psychiatric Industry"?

The best thing was to see the lengths some people go to to defend the industry, which makes me laugh like mad. It's less than a decade that trans people were considered to be mentally ill by the absurd entity of DSM IV, I think.

When the highlight of the entire industry in 2017 is finding that ECT might work every now and then, I can only sit back and laugh.

(05-26-2017, 08:09 AM)stanky Wrote:  I get what your saying, Di.I find it amusing that science itself is punching some holes in the parameters of scientific materialism. Quantum mechanics and astrophysics enable abstract thought via example.

Nope.

Scientific materialism hasn't been harmed a bit by quantum mechanics. Things at quantum level don't behave in terms of physical laws. No big deal there, quantum material isn't physical material. Yet, despite what's happening at the sub-atomic level, atoms continue to behave in exactly the same way they always have.

In fact, it's scientific materialism that set off the search for quantum physics, because the science we have cannot explain the movement of the universe, or the big bang.

To say science is failing when it's produced every bit of evidence we have on quantum physics (and everything else) is a bit silly, if you ask me.

We wouldn't know shit about the universe and astrophysics if Galileo hadn't invented pizza.

(05-26-2017, 08:09 AM)stanky Wrote:  Let me try to reword something:
We need words to think. We think with words. In language, initially, words require objects. The word becomes a symbolic representation of the object. If you try to catch yourself thinking, even abstract thought is based on words that are based on objects. We need the idea of the spear to get to the bow and arrow.The thought words connect, backwards, to objects....and we can abstract from there.

That's no change from what you got wrong the first time, and it is the exact premise of 1984 - if people don't have words for it, it won't exist!

Did art exist before we had words for it? Did music? Love? Respect?

It's a nice idea, but it's wrong.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#37
Gradual accumulation of knowledge regarding the quantum realm is fascinating to a degree that lots of people hate.
Even the people that were first correlating the data coming in from the costly experiments hated the results.
They tore a hole in our comfy place. Weird was suddenly real...though it can be said that from all the data of those experiments, no one actually 'saw' the quantum realm. They saw blips on screens, and slowly realized that the state of the observation was defined by observation.

That's too fucking woo, they would say to each other. being good scientists, they repeated the experiment; contacted their peers; etc.

There was no choice. Woo was allowed into science.
Of course, then it isn't woo anymore. But if we allow science to be this bizarre, even if it is predictable bizarre, as if it's strangeness follows very strict, strange rules.

Science is so odd, bigfoot is boring.
A physicist of the sub-atomic, when confronted by a woo-master, selling some sort of secret knowledge and fear, he might respond thusly:
"You think that's weird! You should study the fundamental nature of reality!"

I'm always shoving at the border wall. It's never easy. But I can't keep up with all the new hypothesis of the sort that are connected to science, like "String Theory". String theory, which should be named 'hypothesis', is the culmination of quantum physicists and mathematicians attempting to make sense of the data. This is lovely...the effort to make the weirdness of the quantum findings led to string theory, which constitutes another realm smaller than the quantum realm, which was small enough already.
For string theory to work, very smart scientists have realized that many dimensions were required.

I don't say that cynically...I say it in a happy way. If I keep up with this super-science-geek thinking, i could begin to believe in a universe that had way more dimensions than it used to. That's cool. I like more dimensions in my ride on the amusement park, if i can get them.

Lots of hard core scientific materialism devotees of the sort that appear on skeptic forums simply haven't kept up with science.

A crack has already been torn in the fabric that seals these adjacent universes from each other...if only because now the mind of science had to open and acknowledge what sounds pretty fucking wooie in retrospect. I'm in no way attempting to validate any woo.
I have no need to go looking for leprechauns, but if t turns out there are leprechauns, i wouldn't want to reject them to to a prior prejudice.

Funny how i manage this wooish new age delusional baby boomer image to some.
Never bought into any of it. Not a dime. Checked out some woo, sure. never signed up.
Not even close. In fact, i 've never even bought any of the usual woo products, like New Tide, now with secret ingredient 6-3j. or Vitalis hair cream. I'm as skeptical as it gets. And a sponge of science.

Rejoice. the universe just got way bigger and more interesting.
If you'd like we can take a tour of that.
I'll try to hold the crack open while you take a glimpse.
Reply
#38
Quote:TA wrote:

That's no change from what you got wrong the first time, and it is the exact premise of 1984 - if people don't have words for it, it won't exist!

Did art exist before we had words for it? Did music? Love? Respect?

It's a nice idea, but it's wrong.

Well now, there's an excellent example of what I mean about different perceptions ... I'd have sworn that what Stanky said, i.e.
"We need words to think. We think with words. In language, initially, words require objects. The word becomes a symbolic representation of the object."  indicated the opposite!

One of us is 'perceiving' this statement arse about backwards.
I could swear it says 'words require objects' .. not objects require words.  .."becomes a representation of the object" not creates the object.

Should I read the gospel of 1984 again??  or did that  'exact premise' change?
 

I'd better let Stanky adjudicate before I launch into ramble about the job of skepticism.  
Is it a data filter,  or a reflexive mental firedoor to be slammed on new ideas?


 
Reply
#39
(05-26-2017, 03:23 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  Well now, there's an excellent example of what I mean about different perceptions ...

Whereas, I'd say it's more total confusion on what's being said.

"Stanky Wrote:Something I've expressed elsewhere, on other sites, which may have some validity, is that thought requires physical metaphors.

We'll get to the bottom of it, by my point stands: thought does not require words or objects.


(05-26-2017, 03:23 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  I'd better let Stanky adjudicate before I launch into ramble about the job of skepticism.  
Is it a data filter,  or a reflexive mental firedoor to be slammed on new ideas?

Skepticism, if applied correctly, is Occam's Razor and should have no preconceptions.

I agree there is a hard core element skeptics to whom scepticism only applies to things they don't already think, but I don't think any of them are here.

I always think of Sagan "We must keep our minds open. But no so far open our brains fall out."
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#40
No worries.
T.A.'s in a mood.
He's happily rejecting everything i mention, to the point of silliness.

"Nope" "Wrong again!"

The strangest part of this wall of certainty, is the news from the quantum level.
We can ignore the data from quantum world explorations because it is immaterial?
Really?

Molecules, formed of smaller bits that have their own rules, don't matter because molecules continue to behave as they did before we stumbled onto the nature of what molecules are made of?

And somehow, the new discoveries about the nature of reality don't matter, because the next level up continues to follow the same rules it used to. It is true, mostly, that macro-level physics functions adequately, independently of the new information about the bits it stems from...which are compatible with materialism because they aren't material?

Huh?

Honestly, I can't fathom your passion to defend the walls of your thinking.
Sure, it must be fun to always be right, but don't you ever want to stretch out a bit?

The flights of fancy I'm trying to share stem from a solid background in all the stuff you're defending.
Right down to Orwell, whom I read and loved 50+ years ago, around the same time i was studying the elements and molecular behavior.
At institutions of higher learning; not on some guru's hippie farm.

I'm coming at my speculations through the long path of education. I don't pull shit out of my ass because i met this weird guy at Bonaroo, fer christsake.
Anyway, it makes me sad to see you taking this same sort of dodge; this same rejection of curiosity itself over some need to be correct, that I have encountered so many times before, that i could honestly write your lines for you.

I'm not too worried about anyone writing my lines for me. Good luck with that.

So,

tell me again why the universe stops where you say it does and there is no chance of humans side-stepping your 100% factual declarations about apathy and mammon and such, when evidently, you aren't even curious enough to keep up with science?

Seriously dude?

You've read nothing about science for decades, right?
You're pretending, right?

At least Sparky, who actually knows some science, knows when it's a good time to back off of my ass.

Honestly, dude. Show me a sign that you aren't an idiot.
Especially a blow-hard, know it all idiot.

wtf is it you are so proud to know?
Anything i didn't know when you were in diapers?
I seem to be missing something here.

Of course, you could recuse yourself from this thread, because of your allergy to grand ponderings of a scientific nature.
The last thing theoretical physics, math, or even philosophy needs, is the guy in the room that has an actual aversion to exploration and an obsolete dedication to yesterday's science news.

This is your site, but if your goal is simply to bog me down with your stodgy-ass, ego-maniacal nonsense and all-knowingness, well, where the fuck does that leave me?
If you don't want to play, just bug out of the thread.
if you must insist on playing grand master, well beyond your capability, well?

What would have attracted me here?
I love you mate, and appreciate what you've done.
But if you insist on being this arrogant, can't you at least pretend to be a buffoon?
You know, like I do?

(I never would have written this post if i didn't notice your nearly neurotic need to reject anyone's creative expressions, in favor of the same old shit...with nary a drop of nuance. Sparky does the same, on his bad days...takes no chances; assaults the creative guy. in very few words, for stupid reasons.)

for fuck's sake.

Who here has the creative imagination?

is there even a contest?

I just need to know if that's something you're happy to nurture, or something you must fight, down to the point of idiocy.

I'm ok with you not wanting to do your homework and needing to pretend to be smarter than you are...there is almost nothing more common and predictable...take a look at the history of your posts here, and their nature...see much nuance?
Sparky? You see any in your posts?

Where do we see it?

That's right.

(Fer christsake, it's not even close. can we admit that? and can all the pedantic stodgy fucks at least get out of my way, in case some lurkers want entertainment?)

Or,

ask me to fade into the sunrise.

I simply can't cope with the glue that farts need to shove in the new bearings to prove that they aren't good bearings.

I could care less if the new bearings were any better...what I'm trying to comprehend is this ocd need of materialists to reject anything, long before even investigating it...as if that was the sacred goal of skepticism and science.

Meanwhile, I'm likely your go-to science guy on this forum.

or, maybe some one else here is?

I'd love to meet them, and discuss some esoteric science stuff, instead of enduring this background noise that, to me, amounts to someone in the crowd yelling "Freebird!"

I demand to hear from all the geniuses here.It's not enough to simply reject stuff, like an authority.

Don't you eventually need to add something?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)