I just enjoy reading about these “preferred” interpretations of quantum. @Quim how did you even get to the idea that quantum is not materialistic.
Quantum “realm” or just quantum effects, are exclusively materialistic.
It is precisely because of the fact that they are predictable and measurable that we know anything about them.
In split brain patients there are different outcomes, however every one of them has measurable difference when compared to healthy brain. There is evidence of personality remaining intact, but there is also evidence where personalities are split after accident. No one has done research with control for prior beliefs.
Well, personally, I don’t like to mix consciousness and quantum phenomena because I think that quantum physics is the “easy way” to try to solve problems – like a black box that nobody really understands, supposedly solving all problems. So I’m not particularly inclined to try to solve the problem of consciousness this way.
However, I have to tell you that quantum physics exhibits properties that have traditionally been considered magical. For example, it shows non-local phenomena like entanglement and tunneling, and sometimes even non-temporal phenomena like the quantum eraser and other puzzling aspects that cause significant trouble when we try to understand them.
Thus, quantum physics is not really “materialistic” as it is inherently unpredictable (there is a total inability to predict where the wave function will collapse, even when we have more probabilities of it collapsing somewhere; we still don’t really know where it is going to collapse). It also seems to violate time and space in ways that are somehow unexpected.
Anyway, I believe that what we should seriously consider is the “sentient” dimension of reality, which has been ignored until today. Maybe exploring this dimension will help us better understand quantum phenomena.
That comes under the heading of unevidenced subjective bias.
Closed minded bias…
Unevidenced appeal to mystery, the very antithesis of science.
Yeah I’ve scoured every major news network, and there is not one single word to support your claim that science has evidenced anything supernatural, to put it plainly, you’re bullshitting.
Sigh, another rather obvious argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. another gap in our knowledge that a theist wants to insert their chosen deity into, laughable, and irrational. Not knowing is not knowing, and nothing more.
Subjective unevidenced, biased.
Like mermaid research…
Maybe we’ll find unicorns…do you think you’re the first person to come here and try and bluff with this sort of risible ludicrous bs?
We cannot perfectly predict orbit for three objects, that doesn’t mean that gravity is supernatural
However, I have to tell you that all experiments have been done with particles and we learned over time where to put detectors and how to tune them so that sub-atomic particles could be measured.
We had a hard time explaining epicycles for a long long time, we now know that there was no magic involved.
I have to ask, how would you even start to impose sentience into vastness of space, why would you even think that materials or space or both or IDK what could be sentient without biological, physical body with necessary chemical/electrical pathways.
Hmm… that’s the problem: you don’t understand that your brain, at the atomic level, is also a vastness of empty space. Your biological processes are not different from the physical processes that take place in stars, planets, nebulas, and galaxies.
I’m not affirming it; I’m only saying that this option is perfectly plausible.
I’m not making an argument of ignorance; I’m only saying that in quantum physics, magical things all of a sudden became part of science. Maybe, one day, “sentience” will also become part of science.
How would it be plausible it is not vastness of space that is contributing to sentience it is the material content.
Actually no, only predictable and measurable part has been officially accepted as scientific view. Literally nobody dares to “explain” what is measured and none of the interpretations has been proposed as official explanation
Basically what is new is that we replaced certainty with probability.
The material content is simply the interaction of different fields, so in fact, there is no “matter” or “solid” anything … only void and forces that emerge from dots and interact with each other.
Hmm… not exactly. The new concept is that probability has become an objective reality. In short, reality can exist in undefined states.
Now, the presence of information alters the behavior of particles. When we KNOW that a particle is NOT here, it alters its behavior, causing it to act as a particle rather than a wave. This is not a minor shift.
If we define “knowledge” as a specific configuration of reality that is only compatible with a possible outcome of events, then this knowledge makes matter behave differently.
So, our ability to retain knowledge is OBJECTIVELY having an effect on reality… wow, this is not a minor issue, man.
Please let us know the measurement of vast. Because, really, if you think that the measurement of the inside of a skull is vast, then you may need a new ruler.
Please show your work for the assertion that biological processes and cosmological processes are not different from each other.
Nope it is dualistic depending on the type of measurement made.
Reality of precise positions of subatomic particles that literally cannot affect objects larger than proton. Please do not fall for these nonsenses.
When you have a simple molecule, none of those effects apply, ever.
No, there isn’t. It is a byproduct of barriers not being infinity “high”. At infinite height the wave function dies immediately at the barrier; if it isn’t infinity high, it quickly goes to zero after the barrier, but not instantly; allowing a tiny probability amplitude for tunneling. For what it is worth: finite barriers can be crossed; and that has been known since before recorded history (like the first time someone stepped over a large rock, or anyone who has climbed a fence).
Leaving aside this arbitrary comparison, we can objectively evidence sentience in humans, and none in inorganic matter. We can note that in every single example consciousness is only evidenced in conjunction with a functioning brain, and that in every single example the consciousness disappears when the brain dies.
However most significantly of all, you have failed to explain how panpsychism (even were it true) would represent objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural.
Who died and made you the spokesperson for all theists. Please demonstrate this assertion with the massive research studies you have undertaken. Do you even realize how fucking idiotic a statement like this is. You just told me all 3000 sects of Christianity, Catholics, JW, Mormon, Evangelic, Baptists, Lutherins, et al… All Hindus, Buddhists, Shaman, Shinto, Bahai, Chinese traditional religions, Taoists, Zorastrians, Pagans, and all the rest, 'Believe science is a universal property that ultimately gives rise to a higher form of consciousness known as god." (CONGRATULATIONS ON THE MOST IDIOTIC STATEMENT OF THE YEAR!)
What “possibility?” Do you understand that a 'POSSIBILITY" must be demonstrated before it can be entertained? How have you shown that ‘God’ is a ‘possibility.’ Please share. Please demonstrate the possibility of a god. Then demonstrate that all science leads us to a universal property of this god thing. I would love to see how you are going to do that. Or are you just making dumb fuck ignorant assertions again? What evidence do you think is available supporting your position? I would love to hear all about it.
What viewpoints do you think atheists have? You are confounding Atheism with a lot of other stuff. In my own case, my viewpoints come from psychological inquiry and my years of study in the humanities. I hold teaching credentials in Sociology and Psychology. World religions is a hobby and I once delved deeply into mysticism, dream cultures, and the occult. My current beliefs have been shaped by western empiricism and existentialism. And these have nothing to do with atheism. They have a lot more to do with Kant, Hume, Locke, Aquinas, Berkeley, Hobbes, Sartre, Jaspers, Camus, Kierkegaard, Niche. and others.There are times I wish I was not so much into my head and had more of a political understanding of the world, instead of this esoteric philosophical comprehension. I literally get lost in political discussions. I’m also envious of those who spout out mathematical constructs as easily as I can cite psychological ideas. I remember liking math as a youth and wonder why my journey did not take me down that path. To assert my Atheism has anything to do with my world opinion is to display an insane amount of ignorance. Atheism is the result of critical inquiry and not the cause. If atheists have viewpoints they are attached to, those viewpoints are separate from atheism.
This is a non-sequitur, atheism requires no evidence. Atheism is asking for evidence. Atheism is in the position of the ‘null hypothesis.’ Until you can demonstrate that your ‘god thing’ is possible, there is no reason to believe such a claim.
Science fails to explain everything, don’t you know that? You can endlessly ask of why and end up nowhere with each and every scientific claim. Science does not give you truths or tell you what things are. Science builds models. It incorporates all known facts into the model it builds and tries to give scientists something they can work with. The best evidence to date suggests consciousness is an emergent property of brain resulting from the communication of information across all its regions and cannot be reduced to something residing in specific areas that control for qualities like attention, hearing, or memory. This is a working definition and will change when science gets new facts and new information. Do you have a better definition? Do you have a better understanding? Please share? I would love for you to enlighten us all with your wisdom.
Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. Wikipedia
So can you show me a mental state occurring without a material interaction? Can you demonstrate consciousness without material interaction? To assert science is wrong, you would first have to make such a demonstration. Were you to actually achieve such a miracle, you would certainly be in line for a Nobel Prize.
You keep making inane assertions but offer nothing in the way of evidence to support your bullshit. Show me consciousness without a material interaction. Show me a diverse viewpoint with actual evidence supporting the view.
Oh, come on. Don’t you know anything is possible? We have been having this conversation for weeks now. I believe it was recently defined as the Mobius Strip of logical inquiry or something like that. All things are possible, even the possibility of the impossible and the possibility that the impossible is impossible. That’s just the way we roll.
Hey! That’s the way we roll. Mobius Strip? Get it? I made a funny.
Oh-dear-god… I would be pulling my hair out right now, but there really ain’t all that much to pull. And if I do anymore facepalming I’m gonna have to get on a Nose Donor List. (Fuck…) Be that as it may, please allow me to enlighten you a bit in regards to your repeated sweeping generalizations about atheists…
As others have informed you COUNTLESS times already, atheism is strictly a lack of belief in any god(s). Period. That’s it. Full stop. Nothing else. Beyond that, every atheist is an individual, with individual thoughts, individual experiences, individual educations, individual lifestyles, individual skills, individual beliefs, etc., etc., etc… My three year old grandson could understand this by now. And since you are most certainly not a stupid person (and I’m guessing you are older than three years), it stands to reason at this point you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge what you’ve been told. As such, that makes you a bridge-dwelling Troll, in my book. (But we all know that already.) Therefore, this post isn’t so much for you, but more for those who are reading but not participating. So, here we go…
For the sake of argument, let’s say there IS some sort of “Cosmic Consciousness.” Our entire known universe is just the inner workings of a brain in the head of some unimaginably large being. Okay, fine. Now what? How does that affect my life in any way, shape, or form any differently than what it’s been for my last 55+ years in existence? Please, do tell. Please, enlighten us narrow-minded atheists as to WHY we should care, even if it’s true.
See, here’s the thing… Personally, I DO NOT KNOW whether or not any god(s) actually exist. And, quite frankly, I don’t really care one way or the other. Let’s face it, if something as vast and powerful as the god of the bible (for example) did actually exist, what the FUCK could I (or anybody) possibly do to stop it from doing whatever it wants? And, for the record, my lack of belief in THAT particular god has little-to-nothing to do with science, as you so inadequately keep claiming. Rather, MY lack of belief stems primarily from the bible itself and the teachings from it. All that other shit you and other theists spew is simply static and background noise you use in an attempt to drown out the points others make about the hypocrisy, contradictions, and inconsistencies of your own religious faith(s). Your being a troll, of course, I have no doubt you will not counter this in any meaningful way. No biggie. Like I said, this is mostly for the benefit of others.
