Existence of God/the nonphysical discussion thread

[tremendoustie]

Okay I needed to cut that down which points are you referencing?

You seem to be adopting the materialist view -- the opposite of Kludge. Kludge is saying ALL that exists is the mind, and nothing physical is real, wheras you are saying ALL that exists is the physical, and the mind (as distinct from the physical) doesn't exist.

So, the second set of three objections apply to the materialist view.

I think the most reasonable view is that the physical is real, and the mind is real also -- in other words, the universe is both physical and non-physical, not just one or the other.

Actually, I think there is a stronger objection to the materialist view, I also talk about in #10 -- briefly, I don't think it can account for self-awareness.

 

[driller80545]

What if none of it is real, but all illusion created in your brain and senses. After all, everything is dependent on interpretation, right. Not very rock solid.
Self awareness is nonexistent without self importance. (Ego).
Maybe we are all simply cells of a larger being?

 

[M House]

The self-aware mechanics are the hardest things to tackle about your brain. Probably, just a self learned device you get from creatively operating negative feedback loops. A large part of the brain's cortex seems to just a integrator. You got this massive midbrain, thalamus, prefrontal switching matrix. We just really need to suck it up and try stuff like this. But your mind to me is just a biological element of your systems and produced by brain to body interaction.

Basically, I feel there's little you can't try to explain about yourself without some brute force and throwing in combined field science.
Example:

1. Well I'm not a moral person I guess so give me access to a pharmacy.
2. Give me any physical test I request blood, endocrine, bios, EKG, oscilloscopes, couple different electro-neurological measuring implements, fMRIs, SPECT, That new computerized tomography thingy, etc.
3. I'll just work thru the systems piece by piece. You know lets beat this shit out. I mean I'll volunteer if I get to pick dosages, chemicals, and hormones. Obviously, not gonna try to kill myself or do something harmful. I want to use small doses of hormones mostly and figure out some triggers. There's a few unique drugs that can help in our mechanical understanding. I'm not talking about the silly hallucinogenics either. Remember that some "scientists" killed that girl at Johns Hopkins giving her something toxic to replicate a asthma attack. Also you gotta check the nerves that plug into the lower brain and dissect our nerve operation down to its biomechanical electronics. It's not like we really don't got a clue anymore. We tested enough on rats and monkeys. Is your system really so unique it won't operate on the same mechanics? It can't be too far off from our already complex understanding of DC logic circuits either. If it is might as well figure out what needs changing.

Another one of the things that you can study are the mechano-receptors humans got. I could test many different things about the nervous system simply on them cuz there are so many elements in a single Meissner Corpuscle.

However, who would actually agree to all that. I mean science is its own enemy too. We have so many different specialized fields dedicated to the operation of your body's mechanics nobody will sit down and put something coherent together test by test.

Time to start rocking some neuropsychopharmacology and some neuropathophysiology.

 

[tremendoustie]

The self-aware mechanics are the hardest things to tackle about your brain. Probably, just a self learned device you get from creatively operating negative feedback loops. A large part of the brain's cortex seems to just a integrator. You got this massive midbrain, thalamus, prefrontal switching matrix. We just really need to suck it up and try stuff like this. But your mind to me is just a biological element of your systems and produced by brain to body interaction.

Basically, I feel there's little you can't try to explain about yourself without some brute force and throwing in combined field science.
Example:

1. Well I'm not a moral person I guess so give me access to a pharmacy.
2. Give me any physical test I request blood, endocrine, bios, EKG, oscilloscopes, couple different electro-neurological measuring implements, fMRIs, SPECT, That new computerized tomography thingy, etc.
3. I'll just work thru the systems piece by piece. You know lets beat this shit out. I mean I'll volunteer if I get to pick dosages, chemicals, and hormones. Obviously, not gonna try to kill myself or do something harmful. I want to use small doses of hormones mostly and figure out some triggers. There's a few unique drugs that can help in our mechanical understanding. I'm not talking about the silly hallucinogenics either. Remember that some "scientists" killed that girl at Johns Hopkins giving her something toxic to replicate a asthma attack. Also you gotta check the nerves that plug into the lower brain and dissect our nerve operation down to its biomechanical electronics. It's not like we really don't got a clue anymore. We tested enough on rats and monkeys. Is your system really so unique it won't operate on the same mechanics? It can't be too far off from our already complex understanding of DC logic circuits either. If it is might as well figure out what needs changing.

Another one of the things that you can study are the mechano-receptors humans got. I could test many different things about the nervous system simply on them cuz there are so many elements in a single Meissner Corpuscle.

However, who would actually agree to all that. I mean science is its own enemy too. We have so many different specialized fields dedicated to the operation of your body's mechanics nobody will sit down and put something coherent together test by test.

Time to start rocking some neuropsychopharmacology and some neuropathophysiology.

It's not about neuropsychopharmacology or neuropathophysiology -- suppose the ultamate goal of all neuro science were achieved -- we had full knowlege of physical brain behavior, and furthermore, suppose we ignore the effects of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions. That is, suppose we could combine a perfect knowledge of the physical state of a person's brain and environment with a perfect theoretical knowledge of physical behavior, to predict all future states of that person's brain. Thus, whatever actions the person takes, whatever they say, etc, is fully predicted by us beforehand. Now, let us ask the question, is that person self aware? We still cannot answer the question, despite perfect physical knowledge. All we can describe are the physical states of the brain, and future states -- we cannot know if the "brain" has a perspective of its own -- if it experiences "awareness". All we can say is that the physical system is in a certain state, and certain inputs through the senses necessarily cause other states. This shows that self-awareness is not a physical attribute at all.

 

[M House]

Um you're self-aware cuz you can feel, think, and interpret stimuli and affect actions independent of environment. It doesn't matter how close to perfect the knowledge becomes. Answer's pretty simple to me.

 

[tremendoustie]

Um you're self-aware cuz you can feel, think, and interpret stimuli and affect actions independent of environment. It doesn't matter how close to perfect the knowledge becomes. Answer's pretty simple to me.

There are two different things you can mean by, "feel", "think", etc. If you mean that the neurons in your brain respond to electrical stimuli sent by your somatosensory system, that is fully explainable by physical laws. If you mean that you experience "awareness" of things, that is quite different. The first is a description of the physical position of particles. The second is a description of your own experience.

Any physical object is completely explained by its physical characteristics. For example, if we suppose that a rock is purely physical, then I would be able to completely explain it by determining the nature and position (or velocity) of all its particles. There would be nothing further to say about the rock. Similarly, any physical attribute can be described in the same way. To be green is a physical attribute. It literally means that, in response to broadband light radiation, an object reflects mainly light of a green wavelength. All of this is, at least in theory, is scientifically measurable.

Yet, even in theory, I cannot use physical observations to prove whether or not you are self aware. Even were I able to determine the position and nature of every particle in your brain, I would not be able to determine your self awareness. I might conjecture that self awareness corresponds to a particular structure, but it would only be conjecture. The actual attribute of self awareness itself can literally only be determined by you -- only your self can know that it is aware of itself.

 

[M House]

Yeah, I feel ultimately it's fully explainable using physical laws. I mean I see little point in attacking a large complex question by first saying it's not understandable or explainable. Self-awareness is just another word game obviously you're not a robot exactly. However, humans aren't incredibly unique from one another either. We do end up doing and thinking about alot of the same shit.

 

[tremendoustie]

Yeah, I feel ultimately it's fully explainable using physical laws. I mean I see little point in attacking a large complex question by first saying it's not understandable or explainable. Self-awareness is just another word game obviously you're not a robot exactly. However, humans aren't incredibly unique from one another either. We do end up doing and thinking about alot of the same shit.

Think about this for a moment: How could someone prove to you that they are self aware?

They could not do it -- any behavior or words of theirs could just be a programmed response, it wouldn't prove anything. Any brain structure they have is only that -- a collection of particles, obeying deterministic laws. It doesn't prove anything. As far as you know, everyone else in the world really could just be a automoton, or "robot", which has no awareness at all.

Yet, you yourself experience self-awareness.

If you believe it is explainable using physical laws, please do so. Explain how you could prove to me that you are self-aware. One can prove or measure any physical characteristic this way, so if self-awareness is physical, it should be possible, at least in theory.

 

[M House]

I think your simply seeing self-awareness as your own perception of self. Everyone's got a perception of self and it's all gonna be alittle different person to person. You don't got my same brain and body for sure. People are slightly robotic in their actions alot of the time though, however. I mean people do like to establish routines and things.

 

[tremendoustie]

I think your simply seeing self-awareness as your own perception of self. Everyone's got a perception of self and it's all gonna be alittle different person to person. You don't got my same brain and body for sure. People are slightly robotic in their actions alot of the time though, however. I mean people do like to establish routines and things.

Yes, by self-awareness I do mean your own perception of self.

Please think carefully about this, I'm not talking about any physical behaviors or "routines" at all. I am saying that you experience awareness. It's the biggest difference between you and my chair. (at least, I assume chairs are not aware, and I assume you are)

The definition of all physical characteristics are in terms of the position and nature of particles, or phyical behaviors. There is no such definition of awareness. I have to BE you to know for sure if you are self-aware or not.

Did you think about my last post? How could someone prove to you that they are self aware? If it is a physical characteristic, it should be possible.

 

[M House]

I thinking you're trying to make yourself feel a bit too special. Did you really do much of anything out of the ordinary for yourself today other than debate me? I guess awareness doesn't really have a concrete definition. Why would it? Obviously, you don't think so different from me other than how you're arranging and defining your vocab.

 

[tremendoustie]

I thinking you're trying to make yourself feel a bit too special. Did you really do much of anything out of the ordinary for yourself today other than debate me? I guess awareness doesn't really have a concrete definition. Why would it? Obviously, you don't think so different from me other than how you're arranging and defining your vocab.

What does what I'm doing have anything to do with anything? I fear you don't understand what I'm saying at all. Maybe don't respond for a bit, and read my last few posts carefully. I have put a lot of thought into this.

 

[M House]

Yes, by self-awareness I do mean your own perception of self.

Please think carefully about this, I'm not talking about any physical behaviors or "routines" at all. I am saying that you experience awareness. It's the biggest difference between you and my chair. (at least, I assume chairs are not aware, and I assume you are)

The definition of all physical characteristics are in terms of the position and nature of particles, or phyical behaviors. There is no such definition of awareness. I have to BE you to know for sure if you are self-aware or not.

Did you think about my last post? How could someone prove to you that they are self aware? If it is a physical characteristic, it should be possible.

Um like I said you're giving me a circular I can't counter. I just tried for two definitions of it and apparently missed. If it doesn't have a solid definition, I can't argue anything about it all.

 

[Kludge]

I thinking you're trying to make yourself feel a bit too special.

lololololololol

Coming from someone who believes he exists....

 

[M House]

Hey you gotta start somewhere Kludge.....

 

[tremendoustie]

Um like I said you're giving me a circular I can't counter. I just tried for two definitions of it and apparently missed. If it doesn't have a solid definition, I can't argue anything about it all.

I think your simply seeing self-awareness as your own perception of self.

I did agree with this definition.

Self-awareness is one of those self-evident things that's hard to define in terms of something else. It's kind of like trying to prove A=A. It just is. It's the fundamental attribute of non-physical existance, just as A=A is the fundamental statement of logic.

Yet, we agree that we experience it -- do you disagree? Suppose rocks are just inanimate collections of particles, as most of us assume them to be. There is a difference between that view, and the view that rocks are self-aware persons, with their own perspective, is there not? In the former case, when I throw a rock, there is no "being" that "experiences" being thrown, it's just an inanimate mass. In the latter case, there is indeed a being who "experiences" being thrown.

Or, suppose your best friend Joe were actually a robot, who had no perspective of his own, but was just a collection of nuts and bolts programmed to behave a certain way. Do you really think there is no difference between this, and the view that Joe is a person with a perspective, who experiences awareness?

If you want to claim there is no difference, and that you do not experience any awareness at all, I cannot disprove you, just as I cannot disprove you if you want to claim A does not equal A.

It seems like a rather myopic view of things, however, and it seems a heck of a lot like ignoring legitimate observations because they might upset a favorite theory. It's also about as unhelpful as Kludge's proposed view, and as damaging if actually followed to its logical conclusion. For example, there's nothing wrong with cracking a rock, because it's just inanimate matter. Why would murdering a person be any different, if there is no being which "experiences" it?

 

[M House]

No, I automatically assume other people have some self-perception and awareness similar to my own. Why wouldn't they? Unless you can prove to me another human is drastically different functionally than you, this is what I'll assume every-time.

 

[hypnagogue]

Tremendoustie, could you define for us, as best as possible, what you mean when you use the terms "non-physical" or "supernatural," ?

 

[tremendoustie]

lololololololol

Coming from someone who believes he exists....

Lol . Please keep imagining me Kludge, at least for the rest of the weekend.

 

[tremendoustie]

Tremendoustie, could you define for us, as best as possible, what you mean when you use the terms "non-physical" or "supernatural," ?

Good point -- that should be clarified. Actually, I really use them interchagably. Non-physical, to me, would simply something is not physical, and supernatural would be something that is not part of nature (which I would say is physical).

Physical to me, means matter. A physical behavior or attribute would be the behavior or attribute of matter. So, potential energy, for example, would be a physical attribute -- an attribute of matter. Gravity would be the description of a common physical behavior -- matter tends to attract other matter.

Any observations through the five senses would be physical -- simply by the nature of the senses. If I see something, photons are physically hitting my eye -- if I hear something, air molecules are physically vibrating.

I don't mean supernatural implies godlike in any way, just something that's not purely matter or an attribute of matter. Something could theoretically be supernatural and competely incapable of affecting the physical world.

Although, I believe the supernatural, or non-physical, can affect the physical world, and vice versa. That would mean that something which is not matter or an attribute of matter is affecting matter, or vice versa (e.g. a mind).